ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT CONDONED AND SUPPORTED BY THE MEDICAL ======
RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA: A CONSPIRACY. ======
Drs. Friesen and Slotin are the principles cited in a failure to support and enforce the Medical Research Council of Canada’s own guidelines and regulations.
To Demonstrate:
The University of Waterloo gave False Assurances and violated the Guidelines, Objectives and Spirit of the Medical Research Council of Canada to Promote J.C.M.Riley and Private Interests.
From:
E. A. Greenhalgh 265—Apt 7 Regina St.N., Waterloo, Ontario. N2J 3B9 Tel.(519)—884—3318 02 July 1996
Dr.H. Friesen Mr. P. Gerhard President of the Senior Investigator Medical Research Ombudsman Ontario. Council of Canada
Dr. A.Carty Mr.Max Eldan President of the President of the National Research Canadian Human Rights Council of Canada Commission. 1.
President Friesen, Dr.Francis Rollesten, and the Council Memebers are being placed on notice that allegations of misconduct, dereliction of duty and responsibility are being made because, had your own regulations and guidelines been properly enforced then the misconduct could not have occurred. President Friesen has been involved from the beginning due his long tenure (perhaps reproductive background?). Dr.Rollesten is alleged to have made a false promise to investigate in 1996. Serious allegations of cover up date to Dr. Slotin circa 1988. Please be fully aware that if a satisfactory answer is not found that serious allegations involving members of the Health and Human Services (Mr.J.Dockery and Dr.L.W.Bivens) all interrelated to J.C.M.Riley will be made in the U.S. Based on your own MRC II forms (supplied by Dr.Rollesten in 1996), and the 1988—89 Grants and Awards Guide, serious allegations of deliberate misconduct will be made against the Administration of the University of Waterloo and J.C.M.Riley. Make no mistake, as Dr.Rollesten has appeared to mislead, the allegations are against the Administration of the University of Waterloo: Dr.J.C.Carson could not have acted without their consent nor direction (your very own Guidelines so dictate!). Your job (President and Council Members) is to be RESPONSIBLE: to respect the public’s safety and handle tax dollars responsibly, and NOT to give monies out to promote a friend’s or politician’s child — which is exactly what I allege you did! Any time NRC irresponsibly ignores its own guidelines, then NRC is endangering the public: creating a new thalidomide or DES (harm for generations). Any time MRC uses tax monies for incompetent researchers it is responsible for promoting harm to society. Allegations, like those ruled upon in the Bitove investigation, of political intervention are being made. The allegations are that people influential to the Progressive Conservative party (for example both Pres. Douglas Wright, a former PC cabinet minister and associate of P.M. Brian Mulroney, and Senator Trevor Eyton whom the PM made a Senator had direct connections to the government directly overlooking NRC: among many people associated with UW) could easily influence MRC to promote special interests of their university: the University of Waterloo. Please be aware that the then Science Minister, Bill Winegard was a former Pres. of Guelph University, which had a joint Center of Excellence alliance with the University of Waterloo. As with the Bitove ruling, the allegation has a real foundation. Politicians are being cited by Justice Krever for the HIV blood scandal that harmed the public. Politicians over ruled Pierre Blais to allow silicon implants to harm the public. I am alleging that NRC Guidelines were violated to promote J.C.M.Riley. Please answer the following: 2.
Did oxidation damage occur in the J.C.M.Riley Ph.D. membrane preparation? Yes or No? If oxidation damage occurred, then I allege that the Administration of the University of Waterloo deliberately engaged in misconduct and Charter violations to receive funding from MRC (and NIH). Are you now prepared to respect your own guidelines and perform a proper and thorough investigation, or will NRC continue to engage in a cover up? I must comment on the tremendous lack of effort exhibited by MRC to this date. Please read your own Objectives 1— 8. Before proceeding, certain simple definitions must be made. (1) The Scientific Method requires work to be repeatable. Theories are put forward and tested! Any work which can be repeated under controlled conditions represents a proof -- not an opinion. To SUPPRESS any work that can be repeated under controlled conditions does NOT represent the scientific method. SUPPRESSION IS A FORM OF MISCONDUCT! Suppression for misrepresentation so to gain federal monies represents a fraudulent action.
(2) Ethic p1. Ethics. The Science of Morals 1602. 3a. The moral system of a particular writer or school of thought 1651. The rules of conduct recognized in certain limited departments of human life 1789. 4. The science of human duty in its widest extent, including, besides ethics proper, the science of law whether civil, political, or international l69O.
(3) Misconduct 1. Bad management; mismanagement. Often quasi- spec., malfeasance. 2. Improper conduct.
NRC II forms provided by Dr.Francis Rollesten (1996) will be cross-referenced to the 1988/89 Grants and Awards Guide, provided by Dr.L.Slotin (circa 1988). ANY discrepancies between old and new forms will place the onus on NRC since the appropriate forms were requested. The allegations concern the conscious intent by the University of Waterloo to commit misconduct, unethical activity (including Charter violations) and cover up, so ANY excuses involving new vs. old forms or guidelines will simply be unacceptable. 3.
Highlights from: Application for an Operating Grant MRC/CRM (1995)
Sections are alphabetized for reference. Underlining or capital- ization added for emphasis.
(A) p.1. “Eligibility, .... who hold an academic appointment in a Canadian university,...These investigators should have been given the RESPONSIBILITY by the UNIVERSITY or INSTITUTION to direct research projects and to supervise students.”
(B)pii. “It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the applicant to provide clear and concise answers to all questions on the application form”
(C)p.1 “Operating Grant Application The undersigned agree that: the general conditions governing the award of a research grant, AS SET OUT in the NRC Grants and Awards Guide, apply TO ANY grant made pursuant to this application and are hereby ACCEPTED BY the applicant(s) AND THE INSTITUTION which employs the applicant(s)
Signatures: Applicant(s) President Head of Dean of Faculty or Dept. Principal
Name: Date:
(D) piii.Signatures The signatures on the application COMMIT BOTH the applicant(s) AND THE INSTITUTION to SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITES. The applicant(s) and the INSTITUTION are JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE for adherence to the general conditions governing the award of a research grant as outlined in the MRC Grants and Awards Guide.,.. Original signatures are required from the UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED DELEGATE representing the INSTITUTION. If the applicant is normally the signing authority for the department or the faculty, another senior official must sign instead. The Signature Certifies: -The UNIVERSITY’S WILLINGNESS to administer ANY grant received according to MRC policies as set out in the MRC Grants and Awards Guide and in ETHICS and INTEGRITY guidelines as defined by the Council. —The University will release funds to the applicant only when ALL CONDITIONS have been met.” 4.
(E) p.iv. “Original Signatures are also required from the applicant. The Signature(s) CONIFRMS: -the accuracy of all information provided -acceptance of the terms and conditions of the grant -that the applicant has read and agrees to comply with the requirements for ETHICS and INTEGERITY in the MRC Grants and Awards Guide.”
(F) p.x. “External Referees You are invited to suggest the names of four peers competent to review in the field(s) of research in which you propose to work. They should not be from the same institution or city nor should they be or have been associates with you or your co-applicants or collaborators within the last 10 years.”
(G) pxii. “Researchers in Canada seeking to train an MRC student in their laboratory must submit their request for a Studentship Award…. it is the Council’s INTENT that each investigator awarded a voucher will develop a program to identify and recruit the MOST QUALIFIED and MERITORIOUS student”
(H) pxiii. “Page 10 Summary of research proposal The objectives, hypothesis, approach and research plan should b summarized. Page 11 Summary of Progress Applicants for renewal of an Operating Grant must complete this page. They should SUMMARIZE THE ACHIEVEMENTS made during the tenure of the grant, relating these to the ORIGINAL OBJECTIVES. Refer briefly to published work and IDENTIFY HOW THE WORK HAS ADVANCED THE STATE OF KMOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD.”
(I) pxiii. “Page 12 Research Proposal A clear concise description of the research proposal should be provided. It should describe the CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE about the work proposed, including RELEVAMT work done by the applicant, CLEARLY DELINEATE THE OBJECTIVES and research plan and provide a RATIONALE for choosing PARTICULAR METHODS and APPROACHES.” 5.
(J) p.xiv “Page 14 This page must be provided and signed by EACH applicant. A. Indicate the number of publications in the past FIVE YEARS ONLY, for each of the following categories: 1. Refereed papers, published or in press 2. Refereed papers, submitted B. List these publications separated into the categories defined in (A). For MRC renewal applicants indicate which publications are a result of your current MRC grant. C. Identify those publications (manuscripts) which you believe to be the most important and explain why.”
(K) p.xv. “Appendix 2. Approval forms for ethical considerations and containment “Appendix 3: Letter of collaboration and support 1. Letters of Collaboration. If significant scientific contributions from collaborators are expected, a signed statement from each collaborator must be included”.
Highlights from: Grants and Awards Guide 1988/89
(L) p.1. “Objectives 5. The objectives which the government aims to achieve with funding provided to the Medical Research Council are as follows: To IMPROVE THE HEALTH of Canadians through the promotion and support of EXCELLENT BASIC, clinical and applied research in the health sciences..,
1. To promote and support research which ADVANCES KNOWLEDGE in the health sciences. 2. To ensure training of the appropriate number of health scientists.., and to provide career support for OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATORS. 5.To promote cooperation between industry, universities, and health care institutions in order to ENCHANCE the DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE, and its applications. 6. To communicate to the public the nature, extent and significance of health sciences research in Canada... 8. To promote health sciences research in areas of national importance...” 6.
(M)p.3. “Ethical Considerations 16. An application to the Medical Research Council for research or personnel support CONSTITUTES A PLEDGE ON THE PART of the applicants and their research INSTITUTIONS TO RESPECT ALL the Guidelines of the NRC of Canada0
(N)p. 8. “Application Requirements 43. In order to meet the needs of the various reviewers and of the Council itself, it is imperative that each applicant provide concise answers to ALL questions on the application form and submit the required number of copies of all supporting documentation with the application. Before having the application countersigned by those AUTHORIZED to do so ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTION, applicants are URGED to see to it that their applications are correctly completed and that SUFFICIENT information is provided to PERMIT ASSESSMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL...,
44...., a signed statement from each such collaborator confirming a willingness to participate in the manner indicated.”
(O)p.9. “52. The INSTITUTION SHALL PROMPTLY ADVISE the Council if the grantee is unable for ANY reason to carry out or complete the research for which the grant was given.”
(P)p.11. “71 . Grants are awarded in support of research to be conducted in a specified Canadian institution with the CONCURRENCE OF THE INSTITUTION’S HEAD, or of an AUTHORIZED deputy...”
(Q)p.63. “Section D Special Responsibilities U.S.National Institutes of Health (NIH) International Research Fellowships. p.66. “Description 413, The Medical Research Council IS RESPONSIBLE for the INITIAL screening of Canadian candidates for International Research Fellowships offered by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. It is anticipated that Canada will be invited to nominate 5 or 6 applicants to the competition for awards to start in 1990..., 416. Criteria that enter into the decision to RECOMMEND approval or disapproval of an application and that INFLUENCE the PRIORITY score of approved applications include the following: 7.
-SCIENTIFIC MERIT of the research to be undertaken by the fellow under the guidance of the sponsor —relevance of the proposed research to biomedical problems -ADEQUACY OF THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH experience of the applicant to undertake the proposed research -whether the proposed research will provide a SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION in knowledge beyond that which the applicant is obtaining if already working in a U.S. institution.”
(R)p.66.”Eligibility Requirements for Canadians 417.Canadian nominees for the award must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada, and must, upon completion of the training provided by the award, HAVE A COMMITMENT OF A POSITION FROM AN INSTITUTION IN CANADA 418. Applicants must present a specific plan for the proposed research training and, prior to submission to NRC of the PRE-APPLICATION, ARRANGE FOR ACCEPTANCE INTO THE LABORATORY OF THE PRECEPTOR under whom they will train in the United States”
(S)p.67. “Procedure for Seeking Nomination 420.Applications for nominations to the competition for NIH awards should be submitted to MRC by Dec. 1 of each year, on Form MRC 18, on each page the words ‘Pre-application for an NIH International Research Fellowship’ must be clearly written.” ***
Before proceeding, one further Oxford Dictionary definition is required:
CONSPIRACY: 1. The action of conspiring. 2. A combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose; an agreement between two or more to do something criminal, illegal or reprehensible. 3. Union or combination for one end or purpose. 8.
PRECEDENT: Yale University laid fraud charges against and refused graduation to a scholarship student whom they allege forged his entrance references and marks. Even though the student did well at Yale, they still laid charges. Yale University, itself, has set a very important precedent: even though the student did well at Yale, the ISSUE was HOW he had gained entrance to Yale, in an alleged fraudulent manner (a preplanned method not available to regular honest students). This precedent will be applied to J.C.M.Riley.
ALLEGATION: J.C.M.Riley was the (pre-)planned benefactor in an alleged conspiracy to gain him a Ph.D. and an academic position not possible by any other (honest) means. This conspiracy was carried out by family and friends requiring misrepresentations and false assurances to be given to federal funding agencies: the Medical Research Council of Canada, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
Dr. F. Rollesten was asked to provide proof of ALL correspondence supplied to MRC, but his VERY SHORT 21 May 96 letter of forms acknowledged the receipt of my letter only. Too many agencies have received expensive and carefully prepared briefs only to fail to reply to very serious concerns (including direct questions). NRC already has extensive material that may be referred to (from circa 1988 onward). And, because the allegat- ions are so serious, a PROPER investigation with proper inter- views is required; so, a failure to do so will be used as evidence of a governmental agency engaged in misconduct and con- spiracy. Please note the reply from Mr.P.Gerhard, and the last letter to the Ontario Ombudsman. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has been alleged to have engaged in misconduct and collusion. Mr.Gerhard has stated that OHRC is being investigated for systemic misuse of sections 34 etc. In essence this means that OHRC had found the E.A.Greenhalgh charges of human and Charter violations against the University of Waterloo TO BE CORRECT. The ONLY reason that OHRC did not proceed against UW was that E.A.Greenhalgh failed to meet an artificial deadline. Essentially, UW was guilty of unethical misconduct and violation of the Canadian constitution (Charter). 9.
Which returns to Dr. Rollesten and allegations of a cover up concerning his letter wherein he states, “I therefore require your permission to pass the letter and its attachments on to the University of Waterloo for investigation.” I allege this to be a maneuver to close the case by citing OHRC’s closing file, and so avoiding a proper investigation. However, OHRC did not make a proper ruling, and OHRC, itself, is very much in doubt (Re. letter from Ombudsman, 19 June 96). Hence, very serious allegations of misconduct and conspiracy against the Administration of the University of Waterloo still stand. Therefore, it would be VERY IMPROPER for the University of Waterloo to investigate itself; and a blatant dereliction of duty by NRC not to undertake a thorough investigation. This is especially true since the allegation is that the Administration deliberately, and with conscious intent, manipulated and lied to the Medical Research Council of Canada.
What was the Plan? The Allegations.
J.C.M.Riley was related to faculty in the PHYSICS Dept., and whose family had influence at the University of Waterloo (perhaps through political and financial connections). The family INTENDED a secure future and career for J.C.M.Riley in academia irregardless of any honest requirements. J.C.M.Riley WAS to have been a physicist, as was the family connection. Why else would J.C.M.Riley start an undergraduate program in physics, and NOT biology or chemistry? N.B., OHRC REFUSED to investigate and answer DIRECT questions, and the Privacy Commission has been requested to provide the information. However, J.C.M.Riley only achieved a C- Gen. B.Sc., and it is alleged that the physics Dept. would not condone a Ph.D. for such a poor level of achievement. What to do? Note points (L) and (M) (prepared before 1988 for NRC). (L) -promotion of EXCELLENT research -research that advances knowledge -training of OUTSTANDING investigators -enhance the development of knowledge and its applications
(M) Ethical considerations and a PLEDGE on the part of the institution to RESPECT ALL the guidelines of MRC. 10.
Already alleged to many, JCM Riley’s benefactors moved him to biology: his only qualification being FAMILY and FRIENDS, neither merit nor ability (clear discrimination against Greenhalgh). Did he enter an undergraduate biology program? A biology undergrad program requires honest, properly enrolled students to take specified courses in BIOLOGY and CHEMISTRY (organic chemistry is a prerequisite) and 3-4 years to complete with an honors project. That is what is expected of HONEST students competing in HONEST, NON DISCRIMINATING programs. JCM Riley has NO undergrad degrees in biology nor chemistry, yet he has a BIOLOGY Ph.D. The FLAW in his Ph.D. thesis (does the CHEMICAL reaction, oxidation occur in his thesis membrane preparation? Yes or No?), requires an understanding of BASIC CHEMISTRY. Review L & N plus: (C) identify and recruit the MOST QUALIFIED and MERITORIOUS student (H) how the work has advanced the state of knowledge in the field (I) RATI0NALE for..., methods and approaches (Q) NRC is responsible for the initial screening of Canadian candidates..., ADEQUACY of the EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND..., of the applicant. From the above, JCM Riley hardly appears neither excellent nor meritorious. How seriously did MRC police its guidelines and regulations? MRC appears to have seriously failed its own mandate, and Canadians. Is MRC going to cite SIGNED ASSURANCES? Please realize the allegations are that the Administration of UW deliberately (a) lied to MRC, and (b) used its political/financial connections to manipulate MRC to its personal and private interests. Note the following (A) investigators..., given the responsibility by the University to direct research and supervise students. (C) the_undersigned agree..., apply to ANY grant made..., and are accepted by the applicant and the INSTITUTION. Dr. Brodie, then Dean of Science was approached by me personally, by letter, legal letters and by an outside independent authority (as requested by UW). Dr.J.E.Thompson was Biology Chair, on Riley’s committee, and would later become the Dean of Science. Douglas Wright was President AND Chancellor (a double responsibility). All were notified by legal council. One letter reply from Mr. R.A.Haney stated that Douglas Wright was an engineer and UNQUALIFIED in biology. Please realize that Douglas Wright gave public speeches in the media about the need for higher standards in education: a Biology Ph.D. should have more than rudimentary (high school level) biology background as did J.C.M.Riley. Douglas Wright has made a mockery of the concept of “Excellence.” Perhaps this explains how the HIV tragedy occurred. Nevertheless, NRC has Mr. Besant’s letter plus other 11.
correspondence previously supplied by Greenhalgh, but has TOTALLY REFUSED to enforce its own mandate. This failure has served to protect J.C.M.Riley, the University of Waterloo, and H.R.Behrman (Yale), but NOT the Canadian (and American) public! (D) “The signatures COMMIT both applicants and the INSTITUTION TO SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES.” I believe honesty and truthfulness MUST be included in ANY agreement of responsibility. The allegation is that the Administration of the University of Waterloo deliberately misled NRC (i.e., lied) to promote J.C.Carlson’s research and J.C.M. Riley, while protecting their arrangement with Yale. Please note under: (D)”UNIVERSITY’s WILLINGNESS..., IN ETHICS AND INTEGRITY..., ALL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET”
(E) “Signature confirms: ... accuracy of ALL information ... to comply with requirement for ETHICS AND INTEGRIY in NRC Grants & Awards Guide” (M) “an application, ... constitutes a PLEDGE ... to respect ALL the guidelines” (N)”That sufficient information is provided to permit assessment of the research proposal”
NOTE: that by suppressing the Greenhalgh thesis from 1986 onward that NOT ONLY was J.C.Carlson lying to MRC, but the Administration of the University of Waterloo as well!
Please do not lie to me (Greenhalgh) MRC about peer review. If you are not provided with ALL the information, then the peer review process is flawed and unsafe. This is especially true for Centers of Excellence. Example: (1) A blood treatment company ORDERED its scientist NOT to report that live HIV could be in its treated product. Without this information the product passed PEER review. If the suppressed material was supplied, it is doubtful that the product would have passed peer review. Can MRC comprehend the example?
Allegation: the Administration deliberately withheld “sufficient” information, so BREAKING THEIR PLEDGE to gain grants not otherwise possible.
(P) “Grants are awarded ... with the CONCURRENCE of the INSTITUTION’S head” 12.
As previously discussed, Douglas Wright was and is responsible. However, Dr.Downey, present President of the University of Waterloo continues to carry the same responsibility. I must allege that Dr.Downey has continued the same unethical behavior of his predecessor (through the OHRC connection), Dr.Wright. They, I must allege, instructed their legal counsel, the firm associated with R.A.Haney, to lie to authorities. Both Mr. Haney, and his successor, Ms.Turner have lied in writing, claiming that Dr.H.R.Behrman was an independent researcher, and that the University of Waterloo by claiming Behrman to be independent of Riley and events, was acting ethically and above board with E.A.Greenhalgh. The Law Society of Upper Canada has confirmed that the relationship is one where the counsel is acting on the direct instructions of their client, and so the client is fully responsible. Ms.Turner was acting in the time period of Dr.Downey, and therefore, Dr.Downey is as fully responsible as Douglas Wright. President Downey is the President on NRC forms and therefore any pledges broken by UW are broken by his Administration too. The Administration has never corrected its unethical activity, remains actively responsible, and so represents a real danger to society. A danger promoted by MRC.
MAJOR ALLEGATION The Administration of the University of Waterloo was prepared to manufacture a Ph.D. to promote JCM Riley because of political, financial and faculty/family connections: merit or excellence were not inclusive issues. This meant the giving of false assurances to MRC and NIH. The Administration of the University of Waterloo was prepared to violate the guidelines, assurances, ethics and integrity of MRC and NIH to promote JCM Riley. To this end, the Administration of the University of Waterloo was prepared to violate the legal, civil, human and Charter Rights of E.A.Greenhalgh to promote JCM Riley.
ALLEGATION: THE CONSPIRACY ======
To move the physics student, JCM Riley, to another science, and into a “sure thing” so he would be GUARANTEED a Ph.D., and subsequently a position and career for life. Please review points Q, R, & S specifically. The Administration, part- icularly the Pres./Chancellor, Douglas Wright, who was a former provincial cabinet minister, and appointed an EDUCATIONAL ADVISOR by former P.M. Brian Mulroney, and was the major signatory on MRC and MRC sponsored (i.e., NIH) programs would be fully aware of ALL rules, guidelines, laws and ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 13.
A person like Douglas Wright had all the financial and political connections to make anything possible that he could wish. Please be fully aware that Pres. Wright DID NOTHING to stop the entire procedure, and indeed instructed or accepted the dealings in bad faith by the university’s lawyer, R.A.Haney. D.Wright was in the position of highest responsibility and accountability. D.Wright turned down (the university requested) competent, independent (i.e., Dr.Nicolson) authoritative finding so that JCM Riley could be promoted!!!
Allegation: The “Sure Thing”
Please be TOTALLY aware that this “promotion” had absolutely nothing to do with excellence, merit or advancing knowledge (please review your own Guidelines and Objectives), but ONLY the guaranteeing of private and personal interests!!! The sure thing in biology (review points P, H, J, N, & I) circa 1980-88 was the concept of membrane fluidity with its importance to signal transmission via hormones on receptors. A majority of researchers at UW had associated MRC grants. In particular Drs.J.C.Carlson and J.E. Thompson: both senior established researchers with connections to Dr. Hansel (Cornell) and Dr. H.R.Behrman (Yale). These people collaborated on papers and exchanges. Carlson and Thompson supervised each others students, i.e., Ms.Gruber & Ms.Bur, later Dr.M.M.Buhr, at the University of Manitoba (re: H.G.Friesen). Alleged conspiracies by Administration are seldom recorded on transcripts, but proceed by quiet career assurances. That JCM Riley from PHYSICS was in a BIOLOGY Ph.D. program BYPASSING the normal (honest) requirements asked and expected of honest undergraduates is a fact. It happened! Please note that an Hons. B.Sc. biology program demands both time and personal discipline. JCM Riley had already demonstrated that he could not handle one undergraduate program, and I allege that his benefactors WERE NOT going to take risks BASED UPON HIS ABILITIES!!! Besides, it would take too long. So how did they overcome these obstacles? They placed him as a technician with J.C.Carlson on the M. M. Buhr Ph.D. to work for a period to “qualify.” To qualify: a discretionary phrase allowing the supervisor the right to say that the student displays exceptional abilities, and does not need go through the rigors of the undergraduate biology program. 14.
Allegation: exceptional abilities can be termed that the supervisor--if he knows what is good for his career--WILL find the candidate does indeed qualify as his benefactors had decreed. Please answer the question: does oxidation damage occur in the JCM Riley Ph.D. thesis membrane preparation? Yes or No? A PROPER biology student with the REQUIRED training and chemistry courses would understand the principles of oxidation! The allegation is that JCM Riley was such an UNEXCEPTIONAL student that he could not comprehend the necessary and VERY BASIC PRINCIPLES INVOLVED! Please realize that JCM Riley, more or less, merely repeated M.M.Buhr’s Ph.D. thesis: in essence, UW granted TWO Ph.D.s for the same work. Rather unexceptional. Further, J.E. Thompson served on both the Buhr and Riley committees. And J.E. Thompson was also Biology Chair, and later Dean of Science. Please review points A, B, C, D, & E, especially regarding signatures. Please read the letter from R.A.Haney, UW legal counsel, to Mr.Davis representing Greenhalgh circa 1991. Mr.Haney represents the official position of the university (confirmed by the LSUC). Mr. Haney CONFIRMS that the E.A.Greenhalgh work was of superior quality, and had been published in a respected journal.
NOTE: The University of Waterloo recognizes the E.A.Greenhalgh work to be of SUPERIOR QUALITY, but:
(1) They had refused to allow Greenhalgh to graduate when his work had been finished before 1986. By holding him another TWO years his work would be made to appear substandard, and he unsuited for scholarships; thus PROTECTING RILEY (& BEHRMAN).
(2) Greenhalgh had to retain legal counsel to graduate.
(3) UW would NOT allow Greenhalgh to graduate before 1988, and ONLY AFTER JCM Riley!!! These acts constitute intent and cons- piracy to promote JCM Riley and his association with Yale.
(4) UW REFUSED to support Greenhalgh with references and other obligations that universities usually bestow on their graduates, unless the university is actively engaged in unethical misconduct. 15. Point: the Greenhalgh work was of superior quality and outlined serious flaws in the work of J.C.M. Riley and H.R.Behrman. Please review MRC points: (D) “ethics and integrity,..., the university will release funds to the applicant only when ALL conditions have been met” (G) “recruit the MOST qualified and meritorious students” (H) “identify how the work has advanced the state of knowledge in the field” (L) “career support for outstanding investigators” (M) “institutions to respect ALL the guidelines of the MCR” (N) “infficient information is provided to permit assessment of the research proposal” (O) “institution shall promptly advise the Council if the grantee is unable for ANY reason to complete the research”
N.B.: Greenhalgh had provided the INSTITUTION with more than sufficient PROOF that the research was flawed, if not outright corrupt. The conspiracy has centered on JCM Riley, but another aspect is the Center of Excellence and Macleans’ University Rankings. UW flaunted its standings in the top 10 to attract students to INCREASE its prestige and REVENUES. Rather than risk the grant and publications (how the universities are ranked), UW chose misconduct and suppression - violation of MRC guidelines Motive and intent.
Q) “MRC is responsible (to NIH) for screening Canadian candidates...ADEQUACY OF THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND and research experience of the applicant.” N.B. Whether or not Riley took part in this particular program, input from MRC and previous NRC funding would have had a DIRECT effect on the NIH grant he part took in with H.R.Behrman at Yale. The points will then broadly (if not exactly) apply. (R) “have a commitment of a position from an institution in Canada...applicants must have a doctoral degree...arrange for acceptance into the laboratory of the preceptor under whom they will train in the U.S.”
N.B. The Greenhalgh thesis defense was placed on hold so Carlson and Riley could travel to meet with Behrman. The evidence exists; MRC just has to be honest enough to investigate. From the aforelisted points, I allege that the Administration of the University of Waterloo HAD TO LIE to MRC to achieve their PREPLANNED objective of promoting JCM Riley by granting his Ph.D. so to receive his post-doctoral funding with H.R.Behrman at Yale, so he could come back to a position at UW (as all had been planned long before by his benefactors). 16.
Nothing above has anything to do with merit, exceptional ability honesty, nor advancing knowledge, but everything to do with lying and unethical misconduct. NOTE: E.A.Greenhalgh was consciously prevented from 1986 graduation to protect BOTH JCM Riley AND H.R.Behrman. E.A.Greenhalgh will enjoy (immensely) having his 1986 SUPPRESSED thesis PUBLICLY compared to H.R.Behrman’s published work of the period. Dr.Behrman made several SERIOUS mistakes. Dr.Behrman and Yale also had to give signed assurances to NIH. Had the E.A.Greenhalgh thesis not been suppressed, then JCM Riley would not have graduated, nor gone to Yale with NIH funding.
Allegation: Conspiracy Point: Faculty and influential friends had pre-planned to guarantee JCM Riley a degree and a position at the University of Waterloo. Combining both the application form and the Grants & Guidelines from MRC, it can be clearly shown how the Administration set out to do this. However, because JCM Riley was substandard, and because CONTRAVENING experiments (not opinions), that could be replicated, existed explaining serious flaws and mistakes; to continue the promotion of JCM Riley, the Administration of the University of Waterloo had to CONSCIOUSLY and with INTENT engage in misconduct. The University of Waterloo (lied) gave false assurances to both the Canadian and American governments. Allegations of failure to act properly and investigate thoroughly can be made against Drs. Slotin and Friesen (MRC), and Dr. Lyle W. Bivens (ORI), and John Dockery (HHS)should be investigated and made public knowledge.
Allegations of Misconduct and Suppression to Protect Riley and ======Behrman (Yale has accepted liability for JCM Riley) ======Aside from a referee allegation, the following will demonstrate a closeness of H.R.Behrman to the Carlson and Riley work and associations; and how he and his reputation would benefit from the suppression of the Greenhalgh thesis (and person in general: hence Yale becomes directly liable). They shared publications, publication references and research proposals. (F) “External Referees...name 4 peers competent to review research...should not be from the same institution or city...or associated with you or...for the last 10 years” Who were Carlson and Riley’s external referees? The answer is important. The University of Waterloo dealt in bad faith by proposing 17.
ONLY three names as independent referees. Dr.Behrman was one whom they were ADAMANT for (Greenhalgh offered 8 plus an outside arbitrator, being more sincere). Greenhalgh has also alleged that a Dr.J.Dorrington was a close-reference-associate of Dr.Behrman, and made a false offer. She has been alleged to have been involved in blacklisting with Dr.Carlson. A specific example: Greenhalgh was invited in 1996 to a biology conference attended by both Carlson and Dorrington, yet both had hosted the same conference previously (1990 & 1992), but neither had contacted him. Was Dorrington a referee or other type of reference for J.C.Carlson, JCM Riley, M.M.Buhr or J.E. Thompson? Riley’s criteria, Carlson’s grant, and Behrman’s grant/reputation ALL depended upon publications: publications that then MUST be seen to be absolutely right irregardless of any contravening evidence. Unfortunately (science advances knowledge by recording changes) the E.A.Greenhalgh work/thesis (which should have been published circa 1986) proved their work and very concepts to be seriously flawed, if not outright wrong! Please note points H, I, & J. All three depended upon membrane fluidity, which the Greenhalgh thesis demonstrated to be wrong. Please review the 17 Mar. 88 letter to Dr.Slotin outlining this very fact, page 3 specifically. Dr.Slotin failed to act properly. The suppressed thesis concluded:
“As for the contention that membrane fluidity is important to receptor—binding (or lack of) or adenylate cyclase functioning (or hindrance thereof, or endocrine function) no support could be provided for such from the work presented in this thesis. What the thesis does conclude is that physical changes do occur in regressing luteal cell membranes, but they are just that: physical responses after the fact. They may be part of the mechanism providing arachidonic acid for PG biosynthesis; however, they are not the signaling mechanism. The literature still places the origin of that signal deeper in the cell and an investigation of genetic expression would provide greater insight than more polarization studies could hope to.”
The entire discussion section of the thesis was suppressed/removed, but the final paragraph had outlined that everything that Carlson, Riley and Behrman were basing their grants upon was wrong. And, not only that, but the thesis in repeatable experiments proved it!!! Had Greenhalgh graduated in 1986 (superior work-confirmed R.A. Haney, and published and recognized by a top ranked journal) then JCM Riley, by every proper, and honest academic standard, would not have only been the most flagrant misconduct and Administration directed 18.
suppression could JCM Riley receive NIH money to go work with H.R.Behrman at Yale. MRC, by NOT enforcing its own MANDATE and guidelines, was engaged in misconduct.
How H.R.Behrman and Yale Benefitted by Supporting J.C.M.Riley.
(1) Dr.Behrman used BSA in his medium experiments. The Greenhalgh thesis outlined possible problems with BSA’s inclusion, phospholipase A2 like action, that interfered with experimental results; hence casting doubts on Behrman’s results. From the suppressed thesis p.144: “serum-free tests matched Fig. 1A so closely, then the NaPB group’s response...”
(2) The use of serum-free medium cast further doubts on Behrman’s own culture work, Greenhalgh thesis p.138,” in a similar approach, Dorflinger & Behrman (255) used plating cell culture,“ And Carlson wrote above this, “this is not similar because their cells were plated,” which indicates: (a)Greenhalgh had clearly recognized the plating technique (b)Carlson was actively intervening to PROTECT Behrman from constructive criticism. (3) Cell death would destroy the concept that membrane fluidity represented a reversible mechanism for hormone signaling. From p.140, “ More interesting were the NaPB treated Saline-Control luteal cells. They exhibited the same response as P24-Regressed luteal cells. Such actions denote them as dying cells.”
Carlson then wrote, "Do you have evidence that they are dying.” Please realize that Dr.Carlson terminated my work and REFUSED any further experimentation.
Please read the FDA letter concerning RU-486 and Dr. R.U.Hausknecht. These experiments in 1986 were the forerunner to these abortion treatments. The University of Waterloo IS responsible for suppressing the ADVANCEMENT OF MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE AS MANDATED in NRC Objectives and Guidelines. (4) Carleon Protecting Colleagues Rather than Promoting Truthful Results Dr.Carlson refused further experimentation, so I was forced to validate the data by referencing minimalistic experiments: those of the Hansel Cornell lab (and Carlson himself.) “...then the NaPB group’s response should be considered a typical result, Statistically, it was the experimental result from the body of a larger work and as such should be acceptable: especially since a paper proposing a luteolytic theory (256) required only one ewe as an experimental model. If the aforementioned is acceptable, then a result supported by literature, 19.
in a large body of work should be acceptable.” Carlson wrote on this page, ”This is quite unfair to your reader since the paper involves many ewes and work from this lab over a number of years has used several dozen animals in support this notion. How can anyone trust you when you reference so indiscriminately.” I draw MRC’s attention to its own guidelines (J) & (I) A. 1. refereed papers published C.Identify those publications which you believe to be most important and explain why.
(I) “Research Proposal, and provide a Rationale for choosing particular methods” Please note that the Hansel work was the rationale used by Carlson and Riley and shared with Behrman. If the basis was flawed, then all subsequent work was flawed. By protecting himself and Riley, Carlson was also protecting Behrman. The following examples were suppressed/removed, and provide proof of the last sentence. p.142 “... re-enforcing the hypothesis that serum possesses inhibitory properties...All the foregoing then supports the choice of not augmenting the medium with PBS...” p.144. “BSA’s action on...Control luteal cell...should provide insight to mechanisms operating...BSA has been noted to interfere with hormonal binding or expression...and therefore the actions seen with BSA/FBS being similar...to regressed cells would indicate that the working regression mechanism occurs beyond the PM.”
Please realize only a precis is provided, neither every example nor detail. When you enter into a proper investigation then I will be more than happy to go through line by line, and publication by publication.
(5) Publications Cited for MRC/NIH Funding
From the suppressed thesis p.149, “The last set of cell suspension experiments (Fig.1B) were at the request of J.C. Carlson and JCM Riley wherein they had performed a membrane suspension experiment consisting of a 90 min. pre-incubation period without treatment followed by an incubation period with treatment where they perceived a maximal response (unpubl. results)”. This would be published in the Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. v.66 1988(received 14 Apr. 87). This journal is an MRC publication, and like MRC, the National Research Council is responsible to 20.
the Canadian public with Guidelines and Obligations and Ethics. By suppressing the Greenhalgh work to gain this publication, Riley and Carlson had engaged in unethical misconduct for the sole purpose of gaining a publication to satisfy a MRC publication requirement. They exhibited conscious intent. Dr.Carlson’s handwriting is on this page. Please realize that Carlson and Riley are BOTH AWARE of the criticisms contained in the 1986—87 work. They suppress (remove) this section, and, yet still go on to publish the work even though repeatable experiments exist clearly demonstrating flaws in their work. Please review MRC guidelines, H, J K L M, & N. Do not cite peer review. Peer review is ONLY valid when honest and open. For example would the blood products have been given to hemophiliac children if the scientists safety report hadn’t been ordered suppressed? Carlson & Riley were quite aware what their actions were. Definite violations (of MRC guidelines) occurred to promote JCM Riley and H.R.Behrman, his preceptor at Yale.
Specific Example: In 1991 Riley and Behrman publish, In Vivo Generation of Hydrogen Peroxide in the Rat Corpus Luteum During Luteolysis. Endocrinology v.12B #4p.l749. They note, ”Within groups of both PGF2a -treated and untreated control rats, other rats received ethanol...which prevents hydrogen peroxide-mediated inhibition of catalase by AT.”.... “In summary, we have demonstrated that luteal hydrogen peroxide levels rapidly increase in vivo with the onset of corpus luteum regression. This finding is significant in light of a number of possible scenarios involving hydrogen peroxide, in which damaging reactive oxygen species and associated enzyme systems could impair luteal function.” From the above, I not only allege that Carlson, Riley and Behrman suppressed, but that they also STOLE my theories from 1986!!! Definite violations of MRC and NIH ethics, if not guidelines and regulations.
EXAMPLES FROM THE SUPPRESSED 1986-7 GREENHALGH THESIS p.l49. “Other researchers have used various pre-incubation times followed by treatment or reaction periods for membrane preparations...time periods included: 3h in the dark (131)” p.200. “Other evidence? The 90 min. pre-incubation experiment of Riley & Carlson (unpubl. results). They claim a maximal response after waiting 90 minutes (under normal atmosphere) and then running the experiment. From all 21.
the foregoing (especially the industrial example and its induction period (222)) would suggest that this 90 minutes allowed the polymer to form and hence a maximal polarization expression. Nevertheless, Figure 1B, the similar luteal cell suspension did not show any enhancement of steroidogenesis. The earlier comments should be reviewed...... Other researchers have performed pre-incubation studies, all under normal atmosphere and without anti-oxidant protection. One example is from Danforth et al (131) who claim membrane fluidity increases (less rigid) could be correlated to changes in gonadotropin binding. Their pre- incubation times consisted of 3h storage in the dark with either etanol or neuramidase (a chemical which removes cell surface sialic acid and therefore unmasks binding sites). Ethanol is supposed to make membranes more fluid and therefore receptors more mobile. They found that neuramidase gave no polarization effects while ethanol caused a polarization decrease. Therefore they concluded that ethanol was an important tool to unmasking receptor sites. However, given the proposed theory (oxidation damage - polymerization), and the fact that ethanol can serve as an anti-oxidant, being an OH scavenger (223,264) would suggest an alternative explanation.”
NOTE: circa 1986 the Greenhalgh thesis explains oxidation-per- oxidation damage and polymerization (there are several pages of explanation) plus explaining a future role for ethanol experiments (recall - Carlson TERMINATED my investigations!!!). H.R.Behrman’s 1986 published work will have to be DIRECTLY COMPARED TO THE SUPPRESSED Greenhalgh thesis, but be aware he was actively promoting the membrane fluidity theory then. It would be at least 4 years before Behrman would propose this theory. I allege (see following quotes) that FIRST JCM Riley lied about oxidation to receive his degree so to work with Behrman, and THEN they stole the suppressed theory (already fully explained circa 1986 and copies available to them). Greenhalgh Thesis quotes p.16O. ‘There is one other major deviation from accepted practice in the technique employed by Riley & Carlson (48), and therefore also incorporated into the experimental design of this thesis, and that is the preparation and study of a lipid suspension under normal atmosphere. Indeed part of the mixing of the probe and suspension is via pasteur pipette and frothing the mixture. The accepted practice is to, at least prepare, and work with lipids under an inert atmosphere and possibly incorporate an anti- oxidant (124, 125, 126).....since unsaturate lipids are extremely 22.
labile and undergo oxidation/peroxidation damage readily (42,152,153, 208),...,The foregoing emphasizes that there is a large understanding in the majority of workers that possible damages exist via oxidation processes to lipids and some redress to the problem made. Oxidation damage was found to be critical in the explanation of the results seen and will be pivotal to further discussion.”
And right beside this paragraph Carlson has written, “Further J. Riley checked out in 1 of his early tests to see if there was oxid. damage—— there was no evidence. If you would have asked him, you would have learned.”
I must invite MRC personnel and other readers if they will put their jobs on the line for the TRUTHFULNESS and COMPETENCY of JCM Riley. The Greenhalgh experiments were very simple and explicit (see BW755c later, but ALL oxidation studies were STOPPED!!! by J.C.Carlson). Does oxidation damage occur in the JCM Riley Ph.D. thesis membrane experiment? Yes or no? if the answer is yes, then JCM Riley, J.Carlson and the Administration lied to MRC and NIH to promote JCM Riley and protect H.R. Behrman (the preceptor) and Yale. Dr.L. Slotin and Pres. H.Friesen refused to enforce MRC’s mandate and this inaction must be questioned since it was not a benefit to the public, as political—induced (including the politics of friends in biology circles) complicity in a conspiracy. Please review points A to S: your own Objectives and Guidelines.
Please read the suppressed thesis p. 193, “The question now becomes, what is generating the oxygen radicals, and consequent lipid damage? Please note the earlier discussion concerning other researchers with lipids and the use of inert atmosphere (N2, Ar), and anti-oxidants in their lipid preparations, plus the fact that lipids are extremely labile to oxidation/peroxidation damages (152,153). Then note that this membrane preparation was not pre- pared under inert atmosphere, and in fact part of the probe mixing required frothing with a pasteur pipette: source of lipid peroxidation and oxygen radical formation.”
I REPEAT, how many of the Council Members and personnel will put their jobs behind JCM Riley, the Ph.D. student who had NO BASIC chemistry nor biology to comprehend the fact that he was OXIDIZING HIS OWN WORK!!! in 1988-89 MRC Awards and Guidelines said: 23.
(Q) “MRC is responsible for the initial screening of Canadian candidates,..., ADEQUACY of’ the educational background,..., of the applicant,...” (L)”Objectives,...,to IMPROVE the health of Canadians through the promotion ,.,., of EXCELLENT BASIC ,...,research,..., 1. ,...,to provide career support for OUTSTANDING investigators (G)”the Council’s intent ,..., to identify and recruit the MOST QUALIFIED and MERITORIOUS student”
JCM Riley REPRESENTS MRC!!! Will you or will you not put your positions, reputations and pensions behind JCM Riley and his work? Yes or no? The public doesn’t have a choice. He could sit on a medical or drug approval board. YOU (MRC) put him there! The Krever Commission and the Westray Inquiry are finding TOO MANY officials denying their responsibilities and accountability to the public. What is MRC going to do?
(6) Calcium Effects, Conferences and “Mentor” Nonsense
Calcium and membranes will be discussed more fully under Pharmaceuticals and ADALAT, but mentioned here in the context of publications and suppression as related to the Administration of the University of Waterloo. I draw your attention to the suppressed thesis p.214: “In agreement with the PM suspension experiments which indicated membrane disruption due to the combined actions of Oa2+,PA2 and free radical actions , it is suggested that PGF2a receptor occupancy of the alternate adenylate cyclase pathway would allow their actions ‘by somehow limiting LAT action, increasing cyclooxygenase production and depleting energy stores. It is further noted that under physiological conditions the divalent ion, Ca2+ ,...,In healthy cells a calcium pump maintains safe levels.”
Please note above how it relates to the Riley & Behrman publications of 1990 & 91.Behrman wasn’t doing such in 1986!!! Four years of advanced research was held back. Please compare this to the comments to Dr. Slotin in 1987—88 about honest cancer researchers. Dr. Victor Ling (Ontario Cancer Institute) won an award in 1990 concerning membrane pumps. I, and he, can not prove any words that we may have had, but his (Dr.Ling’s) published work for 1986 can be DIRECTLY compared to the suppressed thesis: interesting details may arise. 24. Note the following suppressed thesis Quotes: p.161.” Figures 4 to 6A were the earliest study on the membrane suspension adapted from Riley & Carlson (48),...,These figures clearly show a calcium dependency on the polarization results,...,Clearly , this series of figures (4—6A) represents a direct relationship of polarization values/fluidity to calcium concentrations.” p.186.”Another point of contention was the effect of calcium con- centration. Where 1mM was a good working level for Riley & Carlson(48) it proved too high and 0.15 mM Ca2+ was a better working level for this thesis. Why did this difference occur? The direct answer is that they are different preparations. As noted, their technique was based on Mints et al.(93) and they reported (48) the enrichment for this partially purified preparation as 1O X with 5’ nucleotidase as the PM marker, but did concede that impurities were present. Particularly ER, its marker, roterone-insensitive NADH cytochrome C reductase gave an enrichment of 5X (48). As noted earlier,5’nucleotidase is not a good indicator of PM used alone but should be used in conjunction with Na+K=ATPase a more definitive PM marker. Then considering the known ER enrichment of 5X, it is reasonable to assume that their PM suspension (48) may not give the most representative lipid composition found in the PM.”
Please note that last sentence,” not the most representative lipid composition found in the PM.” Everyone was making claims about the plasma membrane, BUT they DID NOT EVEN HAVE PROPER PM present to even begin making those claims. BASIC and SERIOUS FLAWS for Carlson (Riley) and Behrman, since so much of their inter-related, co-referenced work DEPENDED upon these flaws.
Concerning any comments about Dr. Carlson being Greenhalgh’s mentor are a hideous and perverted misuse of the concept. A mentor is supposed to help the student: —not with hold his graduation two additional years until legal counsel was required —provide references and other positive assistance not suppress his research -help publish papers and disseminate new ideas not suppress them. Greenhalgh was forced to publish on his own WITHOUT academic advice or financial aid from either Carlson or UW —take the student to conferences so to introduce him and his work to the peer community . Carlson and UW did NONE of this! 25.
In the context of the above and the calcium dependency concept, very important issues are raised. J.C. Carlson, J.C.M. Riley and Suzanne E.Cziraki presented at the 21st Meeting of the Society for the Study of Reproduction on August 1988 in Seattle Washington work using 1.0mM calcium citing the membrane fluidity theory that the (available) suppressed Greenhalgh work had demonstrated as seriously flawed. Please note that both Cziraki and Greenhalgh both graduated in 1988 even though Cziraki had only begun her program in 1986. By holding the Greenhalgh (“superior quality” re. Haney) graduation and promoting Cziraki in two years, Carlson was demonstrating proof of his deliberate and planned discrimination to undermine and suppress any contravening evidence and constructive criticism of the flawed research. Therefore, he was able to protect and promote JCM Riley’s association with H.R. Behrman. Further proof of misconduct is exhibited by the fact that neither Dr. Carlson nor the Administrators of the University of Waterloo did anything positive nor constructive to help promote and continue the research started by Greenhalgh (even though they were specifically requested in legal correspondence several times to do so). In fact, they promoted work that they knew to be flawed as demonstrated by the consideration that the Administration of the University of Waterloo would have contributed financially to any travel and other expenses associated with Seattle. The University’s direct involvement in suppression (and conspiracy) is once more demonstrated. Please note that Greenhalgh was invited in 1996 to a reproductive conference in Guelph by a Dr. Rieger, not Dr. Carlson. Again both Drs. Carlson and Dorrington COULD have invited him in 1990 or 92 as they then hosted the same conference, had positive and constructive scientific feelings existed. Therefore, the allegation is that Dr. Carlson was not a good mentor (nor a good scientist), and, so, any such argument is completely and totally erroneous.
Drs. Carlson and M. Sawada circa 1993 were cited for plagiarism (the calcium dependency concept) of E.A.Greenhalgh’s 1986-88 suppressed thesis and 1990 J. of Endocrinology papers. Both Endocrinology and the J. of Endocrinology were contacted. The University of Waterloo in 1988 had been forewarned by Mr. Besant that Dr. Carlson and another student intended to repeat the suppressed Greenhalgh concepts. Neither journal would answer any questions concerning the suppressed thesis, but concentrated ONLY on the published papers admitting that they were similar, and because Carlson had been Greenhalgh’s “mentor” they would not consider such plagiarism nor misconduct. The reason the journals took such an attitude may be because of crony-ism and the wish to
26. help a colleague avoid a civil action. The bulk of the issue centered on the SUPPRESSED work and by addressing these concerns would bring out the fact that JCM Riley and H.R. Behrman had (circa 1990) used concepts already explained by E.A. Greenhalgh in 1986! This would lead to potential FEDERAL charges (MRC-NIH funding). Therefore, the ISSUES raised by Greenhalgh, re., misconduct and plagiarism regarding THE SUPPRESSED work were NEVER addressed (even though direct questions had been asked)! However, the conspiracy allegation gains more and more credence. And this leads to 1996 and Dr. Francis Rollesten of MRC, and his alleged fraudulent offer of an investigation BY the University of Waterloo into misconduct by J.C. Carlson and the University of Waterloo. A TOTALLY inappropriate and misleading offer: at best suggesting a lack of understanding and at worst, collusion and cover up. For example, the Administration would cite the closing of the OHRC investigation and the very incomplete findings by the journals to claim that the issue had been settled. Please note reply from the ACLU who state a complex scientific investigation is required. Recall the example of the blood company stating that no HIV existed in their product while they with held internal evidence. Truth and justice are often dependent on ALL the facts being fully investigated and revealed. Dr. Francis Rollesten must be held accountable for his allegedly false offer to investigate and other misrepresentations. Although cronyism may be an appropriate issue, others will be raised.
THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND CANADIAN RESEARCH
The issue is NaPB from the suppressed work. Please review the RU-486 and Dr. R. U. Hausknecht’s (1995) abortion technique discussed in letters between the FDA and E. A. Greenhalgh dated 1994 & 95. Greenhalgh had outlined from his suppressed research the possible use of cancer drugs (for abortions) to the Endocrinology editor at Mt. Sinai hospital in Los Angeles circa 1993. That same year, a Los Angeles doctor at Mt. Sinai comments in the media on the possible use of cancer drugs in abortions. Dr. R. U. Hausknecht then published a study using cancer drugs and prostaglandins-THE DISCOVERY OF THE DECADE- out of Mt. Sinai hospital in New York. Quite the coincidence. Please realize that this SANE theory had been explained to Dr. Pace-Asciak of Toronto Sick Children’s Hospital in 1986, who wrote of its potential for clinical studies of value to women. And to Dr. Carl Laskin at Toronto’s General Hospital, but who said he was unqualified for such studies. Please note that Dr. Laskin then received $80,000.xx
27.
in a grant from MRC or the pharmaceutical industry for a similar concept study (i.e., BW755c theory). Dr. Laskin had been contacted about BW755c, an experimental drug of Burroughs Wellcome (see enclosed), an NSAID used in arthritis. Please note that Centers of Excellence were an MRC proposal to bring universities and private industry together to promote medical research as outlined in MRC Guidelines. Then why did CIBA-Giegy state that they don’t do research in Canada? Also, please realize that Dr. Rosenthal of McMaster University turned down the offer of private funding for AIDS research. Please explain. Please review all the enclosed. E. A. Greenhalgh approached approximately 22 pharmaceutical firms in the hope of bringing research funding to a Canadian facility; or if not, to be funded abroad. A few telling responses are typical (enclosed). I must ask, how much private funding has Drs. Carlson and Riley secured or have they always held their hands out to the tax payers? A focal point will be the enclosed research proposal sent to Hoechst Celanese circa 1992; various forms had been sent even earlier, but note how the proposals are directly linked to the suppressed thesis theories.
Lost Research_and Its_Signifiçance to_Society
We must ask, what are the pharmaceutical companies’ intent? To be able to place dangerous drugs on the market and escape liability, or the promotion of the highest and safest quality in research and researchers? To answer the question we must examine the replies from the various companies. In 1990 CIBA—Giegy offered an MRC co—sponsored scholarship, yet in 1992 they commented that they do NOT do fundamental research in Canada. Please realize that PM Mulroney had extended the pharmaceutical act to encourage specifically more basic research in Canada. What’s up? I must allege that politically connected people associated with the Administration of the University of Waterloo could have been involved. I must point out that at least two people, Douglas Wright and Senator Trevor Eyton had direct connections to the Mulroney government. Whether it was just these two individuals or others is not the issue. The issue is whether it is reasonable and logical (i.e., is there historical precedence in politics and academe) that rich, powerful and politically connected people can behave in mean—spirited and vindictive manners so to seek to destroy individuals? Rather than be vague, did the Administration of the University of Waterloo ever do anything positive to help promote the work proposed by Greenhalgh (especially when asked to do so in writing)? Therefore, I must allege by the above that the Administration of the University of Waterloo was in direct contravention of MRC’s mandate and objectives: UW’s signed assurances to federal agencies were false (with intent). I would like to believe that many of the pharmaceutical firms would have wished to promote an honest and truthful researcher such as myself, but were forced by political pressure not to. 28.
BW755c, NaPB,RU-486 and Dr. Hausknecht
(A) The NaPB explanation was gutted from the thesis by the University of Waterloo; however, please review the letters to the FDA concerning Dr. Hausknecht’s cancer/drug/prostaglandin treatment of women. A similar theory had previously been outlined to Endocrinology etc. Further, Pres. Don Buxton of Roussel Can., who wished to market RU-486 in Canada, had had the Cell Death Signal Theory explained in a proposal (as did others). Please note his reply. This research termed the DISCOVERY OF THE DECADE in 1995, had been suppressed by the University of Waterloo in
1986 (9 years!)! And the suppression I allege, was to protect JCM Riley and H. R.Behrman at Yale.
(B)HOWEVER, Greenhalgh also saw the other side of this treatment’s theory. Besides abortions, the theory explains how SPONTANEOUS abortions (for mothers who WANT children) may be prevented. Dr. Carl Laskin was so approached (as had Dr. Pace-Asciak in 1986). The drug BW755c was central to the theory as started from the suppressed thesis work (centering on anti—oxidant-prevention of free radical peroxidation damage). Burroughs Wellcome was NOT interested in research that had included one of THEIR OWN PRODUCTS! Dr. Laskin, and no comments are made whether he is or is not a good person, was not qualified (his own words) to be involved in a project where a potent NSAID (BW755c) could be studied in the context of preventing spontaneous abortions: helping women who have difficult pregnancies. However, the following year he received a large grant to under take a similar clinical study with ASPIRIN! Please explain! MRC and the pharmaceuticals proposed Centers of Excellence to develop new medicines to advance medical research and help society and the Canadian government granted patent concessions (over generic opposition) to promote research. So we have a product, BW755c, which has been studied on humans (arthritis), and very simple experiments are proposed by Greenhalgh that could lead to clinical studies to help women, then please explain Burroughs Wellcome’s indifference.
(C) Aspirin, Pfizer & Bayer The suppressed Greenhalgh thesis explained cell damage related to high calcium concentrations. ADALAT is a heart drug now being questioned concerning deaths of the patients using it (contact Dr. Michelle Brill—Edwards, formerly of Health Canada). ADALAT is a calcium channel blocker. A paper not used in my thesis due to the termination of all my experiments by Dr. Carlson was, Inhibition of Macrophage Activation by Calcium Channel Blockers and Calmodulin Antagonists. Cell. Immun. v.95 (1985). I was running afoul of Drs. Carlson & Riley in questioning their paper concerning calmodulin and calmidazolium so this work was stopped. Nevertheless, the paper commented on the drugs nifedipine and verapamil. I would have liked to have studied their effects on luteal cells, which may have lead to insight to heart muscle cells’ reaction or damage. ONE SUGGESTION from the suppressed thesis is the possibility that the calcium channel blocker COULD cause a toxic build up of calcium that would disrupt the internal membranes (that the suppressed thesis suggested were more susceptible to such action). IF this hypothesis is correct (should be examined) then an explanation for the patients’ deaths exists. Should 29.
MRC be concerned? Like all of my research, I propose simple, straight foreward experiments. Is it possible that my research was stopped to allow a dangerous product on the market? If MRC doesn’t do a proper investigation then MRC is giving a powerful credence to this allegation.
(D) AIDS and Cancer The Research Proposal sent to the various pharmaceutical companies had realistic and attainable goals. And the work was a direct extension of the suppressed thesis. What does MRC and the Pharmaceutical Industry have against cancer and AIDS research? Lets examine each section.
1. Reliable over the counter AIDS test. Companies circa 1996 are announcing these. Is it possible that the industry didn’t want competition? Or is it possible that the industry recognized my thoroughness and how I like to double check new results against existing models, and were afraid that I’d point out flaws? Abbot Labs.’ AIDS test was found (Apr. 96) to give fa1se results. Could my thoroughness and honesty be perceived as a threat? A very good public interest question don’t you think: is industry afraid of and threatened by honest researchers? Is MRC? ii. “break the chain “and interrupt HIV with less drastic therapy. Isn’t that the “new” approach with the proteases AZT and other drug combinations now being used? Why wasn’t I encouraged and helped? Please note that Dr. Rosenthal and McMaster turned down private funding (a realistic possibility if you recall CIBA-Giegy’s scholarship and Slotin’s reply about funding at a facility). AIDS research is “picky” about funding??? Tell that to the activists who say that government agencies aren’t doing enough. iii. Cancer cells and a specific signal to tell the tumour to die: enzyme/protein components. Please note that shortly after I sent out these proposals that Harvard announced the proposal of a protein to stop breast cancer. Another coincidence. Why wasn’t anyone helping me? MRC? iv. AIDS and Evolution. Please read the letters sent to Dr. K. Dunkin and the FDA concerning VTT. What if AIDS isn’t a “punishment from God”? but rather that AIDS and cancer may be evolutionary control mechanisms to evolving and changing genomes? What if VTT is right? What if killer flus do follow evolutionary induced genome changes? Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of society to follow up such research?
There is too much detail. Is MRC prepared to help? Will MRC do its duty and investigate the University of Waterloo? Will Drs. Friesen and Rollesten and other personnel put their personal reputations and jobs behind JCM Riley (no oxidation occurred in his Ph.D. membrane preparation because he checked it out in one of his experiments) and his abilities? I await your reply. The issues are very serious so much so, that I will accept as proof MRC’s failure to perform a proper and thorough investigation of your involvement in a conspiracy to protect JCM Riley and H. R. Behrman(Yale).
Who is Dr. Henry G. Friesen re., Endo.v.11O,1985 ; of the University of Manitoba who in a reproductive paper on rat ovaries 29. referenced Dorrington, Armstrong, and Rao: all who have connections to Dr. H. R. Behrman? Would this H. G. Friesen protect his academic colleagues? Is he the same Dr. H. Friesen who is President of MRC? Is he related to a Dr. Friesen at UW? Is Dr. Friesen an acquaintance and familar with H. R. Behrman of Yale? The paper above cited was funded through joint NIH and MRC grants: just like Carlson and Riley and Behrman. Dr. M. N. Buhr upon leaving UW is reported as having went to the University of Manitoba. Both Buhr and Riley referenced Behrman, whom JCM Riley went to work under through some sort of UW-MRC-NIH arrangement. Drs. Dorrington and Carlson are familiar to each other through SORB, and reference Behrman and each hosted SORB conferences (in 1990 and 92 but neither invited Greenhalgh). In 96 Dr. Rieger of Guelph invited Greenhalgh to a SORB conference based on his 1990 publication (available to both Carlson and Dorrington as to Rieger). Quite the academic entanglement.
President Friesen of MRC would also have to answer to government and political figures. Let me quote a Maclean’s article (Sept. 25/95)” in an 86-page ruling, Lederman declared that Bitove had used its access to former P.M. Mulroney during negotiations and received a ‘substantial windfall’ as a result,..., It would be naive to believe public servants are not susceptible to political influence, the judge said. Their careers may depend on how responsive they are to their political masters.” Douglas Wright (Pres. of UW and former P.C. cabinet minister) and Bill Winegard (Pres. of U. of Guelph and P.C. Science Minister) had direct connections to Mulroney and therefore influence over MRC. Both wanted to promote the (MRC) concept of “Centers of Excellence” which they both had at their respective universities (in fact UW and UG have joint research centers). JCM Riley had a relative on faculty at UW in physics (Douglas Wright was an engineer). The P.C. government was promoting both Centers of Excellence and Bill C—22—— an extension of the pharmaceutical patent protection act in EXCHANGE for increased private research funding in Canada. The Centers of Excellence program, the joint ventures between enterprise and universities would have appeared to have been the perfect candidate to benefit from such a scheme. And, therefore, people like Douglas Wright and personnel from the university would have had tremendous influence over both MRC and private industry. The allegation is one of conspiracy; the above demonstrates realistic and logical possibilities with realistic and logical motivations.
A great deal of material has been (and in the past) supplied to MRC to initiate an investigation of the Administration of the University of Waterloo. MRC’s own mandate and objectives to promote the health of Canadians cries out for an investigation. MRC is respectfully requested to honour its own guidelines, mandate and objectives. And, again, not to do so will be accepted to constitute proof of a conspiracy to protect J. C. M. Riley and H.R. Behrman and Yale University. Your reply is expected.
Respectfully yours Edward A. Greenhalgh DAVIS & ASSOCIATES BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS ______Alan J. DAVIS
MARION E. KORN MARILYN K. DAVIS SUITE 400 347 BAY STREET COPY TORONTO,ONTARIO M5H 2R7 12 Apri1 1991 TELEPHONE (416)365-1321
DELIVERED BY FAX AND MAIL Facsimile: (4I6)365-9458
WITHOUT PREJUDICE File Number 90414
Haney, Haney & Kendall Barristers and Solicitors P. O. Box 1851 41 Erb St. East Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3Z9
ATTENTTION: MR. R. A. HANEY
Dear Mr Haney:
RE: EDWARD GREENHALGH and UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
Receipt of your correspondence dated March 231, 1991 is acknowledged.
I am advised by my client that he considers the President of the University of Waterloo and Senate of the University of Waterloo to be fully responsible for the actions undertaken by representatives of the University of Waterloo forming the subject matter of my client’s complaints.
I am further advised by my client that Dean Gardiner and the then university secretary, Jack Brown, met with my client on December 8, 1989 to discuss the probe undertaken by the University of Waterloo concerning my client and his scientific theories. In this regard, I am advised by my client that representatives of the university made an offer to assist our client if his scientific theories were published.
As indicated to you in previous correspondence, it would appear that my client’s scientific theories have, at least, been accepted by the scientific community, as his journal 2.
articles have been published in leading scientific journals.
Accordingly, I am requesting by my client to request that the university provide complete details as to the results of the probe of inquiry undertaken and the conclusions arising therefrom. My client has undertakenrequested.requested aa andcopy copy thê of of conclusionsany anyand and all arisingdocumentation therefrom. relating My client to the - findingsfindings~.has of such a probe of inquiry. My client has indicated that if he does not receive complete details with respect of the subject probe forthwith, he will conclude that the university never had a bonafide intention of fairly dealing with the nature of his complaints. In this regard, my client is of the opinion that the failure of university officials to properly deal with the subject matter of his complaint is an indication that the university lacks a bonafide interest in supporting basic scientific research.
Unless I am in receipt of the information requested herein within 7 days of the date of this letter, my client has indicated an intention to forthwith pursue his complaints in both the public and political forums.
I await your response.
Yours very truly,
DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
A1an J. Davis
AJD:dh
C: MR. EDWARD GREENHALGH HANEY, HANEY & KENDALL
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
Reginald A. Haney, Q.C. Mary Anne Haney, B.A. L.L.B John J. Kendall B.A. M.B.A. Lyn D. Turner, B. Sc. L.L.B
Counsel Paul F. Haney, B.A. L.L.B. P.O. BOX 185 41 ERB ST. EAST WATERLOO, ONTARIO N2J 3Z9
TEL: (519)747-1010 FAX:(519)747-9323
April 22, 1991 Davis & Associates, Barristers and Solicitors Suite 400, 347 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontairo N5H 2R7
Attention:. Mr. Alan J. Davis
Dear Sirs: Re: University of Waterloo and Edward Greenhalqh
Since writing to you on April 18th, I have now had an opportunity of checking further at the University. The meeting which occurred on December 8th was in the year 1988, not 1989 as you state in your letter. It is quite correct that Dean Gardner and Mr. Brown were present, but I am advised that no undertakings or representations were made at that time as your client has informed you.
So there will be no misunderstanding on your part, the University Is not prepared to award your client a Ph.D. based upon research which he did in a Masters program. This is not negotiable and this decision is firm, and your client should pursue any remedies which he may feel he has in that connection. I repeat once again that your client is quite at liberty to contact any faculty members at the University of Waterloo with whom he has had contact and obtain from them any references or recommendations which they are prepared to give, if he wishes to enter a Ph.D. program at any other educational institution.
It is not unusual that research done for a Masters degree may very well be high quality research; the results may in fact have been published, but this is no substitution for registering in a Ph.D. program and satisfying all of the University requirements for that degree. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
Rockville MD 20857
July 11, 1994
Mr. Edward A, Greenhalgh 25-7 Regina Street, North Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 3B9 Canada
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Thank you for your letter of June 10, 1994, and accompanying materials referring, in part, to RU486 and arsenic. I have shared these materials with our Division of Metabolism and Endocrine Drug Products in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
FDA is committed to approving safe and effective products, and we work with sponsors to ensure that the necessary steps to secure approval are taken. Approval of a drug is not a quick process, due to the need for a drug’s sponsor to conduct clinical studies demonstrating that a product is safe and effective in humans. These requirements are specified in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the implementing regulations. In general, clinical studies are sponsored by drug manufacturers, conducted by clinical investigators, and monitored by FDA.
FDA approves a drug for use in the United States after it has reviewed the results of the manufacturer’s/sponsor’s New Drug Application, containing data (results of human, animal, and laboratory testing, and manufacturing information) which demonstrate the product’s safety and efficacy. Investigational drugs may not be distributed or imported for trial on humans unless the sponsor has filed an Investigational New Drug (IND) application as specified in FDA’s regulations.
I hope this information has been helpful, and once again thank you for taking the time to write.
Sincerely yours,
Mary K. Pendergast Deputy Commissioner Senior Advisor to the Commissioner A PROPOSED FUNCTION STUDY OF RU486 vs. ARSENIC POISONING vs. NEMBUTAL TREATMENT (re.: CELL DEATH SIGNAL THEORY).
An Outline by E. A. Greenhalgh to Coincide with a Request to the National Institute of Health (NIH) for an Investigation into Scientific Misconduct in Reproductive Endocrinology. 10 June 1994 FROM:
E. A. Greenhalgh
265-7 Regina St.N.,
Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 3B9
Canada
Ph: (519) 884-3318
TO:
Ms.CindyDr. Samuel PeirsOn, Marrow, Program the National Director, Institute National of Women’sHealth (NIH)Health Network Ms. Cindy Peirson, Program Director, National Women’s Health Network Mr.David Kesseler, Commissioner, the Food & Drug Administration’ Rep. Christopher Smith CD-NJ), RU486 Review, Rep. John D. Dingell (D), the Oversight Committee. Enclosed is a scientific argument with support material. The request to Dr. Samuel Marrow of NIH will follow at a later date due to the time—consuming requirements of accuracy and cross-referencing. And human testing of RU486 will begin in the fall. The material can be examined as you desire. A longstanding academic dispute (threatening to some major researchers) based on ethics and safety has been ongoing since 1987. The major surprise has been the appalling lack of safety standards and agencies to investigate problems in Canada. To highlight this point, Canada has had to invite the FDA to provide safety standards concerning blood products for the Canadian Red Cross.
Note my 3 publications: Toxicology (1986)v.42; a histological study/comparison of pesticides, and the two Journal of Endocrinology (UK) papers, v.425 (1990); regression studies of luteal cells, mentioning the Cell Death Signal theory. Please note the 1986 letter from a Dr. Pace—Asciak of Toronto’s Sick Children’s Hospital: “work could be of clinical value.” Similarly, Dr. G. L. Nicolson of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and his incredibly kind support noting that the theory should be followed up on. Also, Dr. Peddie of Princess Anne Hospital (UK) original kind reply about my work being in accord with their own research. The concerns about blacklisting and suppression are in the copy of the letter sent to the Ontario Human Rights’ Commission and government agencies. Note replies.
The above stresses that my work is credible being published in divergent disciplines, and the theory has a basis in reality. The work had been started but blocked. Why? I do not know, but theories must be tested, and blacklisting prevents same. Suppression should be a concern to the reader suggesting something important. That concept/theory follows (in very simplified form). 3.
RU486 vs. Arsenic/Nembutal or Other Poisoning
In spontaneous and/or induced abortion there is:
1. A prostaglandin surge affecting the pituitary initiating the “the resetting” of the menstrual cycle. This over—rides the positive hormonal signal from the fetus. In induced abortions this is the prostaglandin injection.
2. The fetus must be harmed/killed to over—ride the positive signal of the fetal hormones that are maintaining the pregnancy. RU486 harms/kills the fetus.
Point : Harmful side-effects (mutagenic/carcingenic/other)by RU486 to the adult female are unknown. Let us examine concepts suppressed by the University of Waterloo, Canada. Why is not known, but a directly comparable model is available. In examination of luteal regression, Greenhalgh called regression a form of induced cell death (hence, Cell Death Signal theory). Experiments were begun to compare the effects of sodium pentabarbitol (aka Nembutal) on the ovary/luteal cells (see enclosed photocopied pages of suppressed thesis). Here is the point, sodium pentabarbitol caused the same effects of regression (decreased progesterone)as had the prostaglandin injections. Consider the effect as induced cell death, then using my toxicology experience I considered, ”what kills cells?” Combining toxicology and endocrinology, I looked for similar experiments. Two papers I reviewed before my work was stopped were:
1. “Changes in steroidogenic Activity of PreOvulatory Rat Follicles after Blockage of Ovulation with Nembutal,” in the Dynamics of Ovarian Function (1981). 2. “Impaired Ovarian Functions in Arsenic-treated Freshwater Fish, Colisa Fasciatus (BL & SCH.)”Toxicology Letters, 20(1984).
These two papers are noted because of corelations to results my work found and the following hypothesis/model.
RU486’s side-effects are not known. However, a chemical is required to harm/kill the fetus causing a chain/cascade of events to reset the female’s reproductive cycle. Two points:
1. Women who have used RU486 report being very ill and nauseous etc. Not To Say it is, but these symptoms are similar to arsenic poisoning. Why not test a MODEL using arsenic/prostaglandin regimen as done with RU486? The effect would be: (a) using prostaglandin to reset the female reproductive cycle. (b) killing the fetus.
2. Arsenic has a long studied human medical history. (a) Arsenic at a sublethal, non-chronic dose may not cause long term harm or genetic mutations as other pharmaceuticals can, or other long term side—effects (i.e., the Intergeneration carcinogenic relationship of DES for example).
(b) Arsenic is cheap. All major health care initiatives/pharmaceutical claims for the use of drug therapy(over surgery) is to reduce the cost of medical care. Sublethal doses of an arsenic compound should cost much less than one RU486 pill. Generic companies can be involved making prescription costs much cheaper and more widely available. Further, prescriptions can be specifically tailored to match the individual. Therefore, a cost effective medicine. - 2. Paper # 2 (arsenic pollution on fish ovaries) found, “After 15 days of exposure to a sublethal concentration of arsenic(III)oxide (14.0 mg/I) there were no appreciable histologlcal alterations in the ovary, but 30 days of exposure resulted in marked degenerative changes during the mature phase. These changes included prominent follicular spaces, reduction in the development of IInd and IIIrd stage oocyte, reduced number and diameter of nucleoli and increased atretic follicles .“...atretic follicles N.B.
The common link my hypothesis found was the degeneration of follicles or atresia. Increased atretic follicles is part of the normal aging of the ovary until a woman becomes menopausic. The question then becomes that if you have any agent that increases atresia, are you speeding up the onset of menopause? Would such an agent be harming the functioning of the ovary? Is RU486 such an agent? How serious a question is It? Is the answer worth discovering, especially if the costs are minimal?
We have a model; common measurable parameters, decreased progesterone secretion, and histological tissues to examine for artifacts (i.e., the percentage of atretic follicles) caused by prostaglandin, sodium pentabarbltol and arsenic. Ru486 can now be measured against these parameters on a model. The immediate concern for everyone, but especially women, is, will RU486 cause a lasting /permanent harm to the ovary’s functioning, or is it a very minor effect? Would arsenic? Questions can be answered immediately if you want to.
Is abortion right or wrong? Whether chemical or other, you are killing the fetus. The pharmaceutical companies are not creating the problem, merely providing a means to an end. The dilemma resides in society: can every child be loved and nurtured to grow to be positive, or be mistreated to become a danger? Society has to make that decision, but it comes down to choices. Who decides? One question that can be answered, will RU486 cause premature aging of the ovary and subsequent hardship to the older female (with higher health costs later)? This question can be answered.
Final Point : Why were Greenhalgh’s theories and work suppressed? Greenhalgh does not know, there may be many reasons. What is more important, would repeating the work (anywhere, by anyone, even in FDA labs)in the above context benefit women’s health and safety? The public? Such is my belief, otherwise I wouldn’t have prepared this outline, nor taken any of my very costly past stands concerning ethics and safety.
Please review the enclosed material. Answers are available if you choose to examine and investigate. Remember DES, thalidomide and the Poisson cancer study. The choice is yours.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Edward A. Greenhalgh. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
Rockville MD 20857
February 27, 1996
Mr. Edward A Greenhalgh 265 Regina Street, North, Apt 7 Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9 Canada
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
We are in receipt of your January 11, 1996, letter and accompanying materials to Dr. David Kessler concerning your Viroid Thermodynamic Theory (VTT) and other issues. We have shared these materials with the Food and Drug Administration’s — (FDA) Office of AIDS and Special Health Issues for its information.
FDA is not in the position of providing a laboratory to support an individual’s research. And in her July 11, 1994, letter to you, Deputy Commissioner Mary Pendergast explained, in detail the necessary steps to having a therapeutic product approved by the Agency.
Lastly, as already explained to you by the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services(HHS) and the Surgeon General’s office, neither HHS nor the agencies under it (including FDA) can intervene in any way in your allegations regarding Yale University and the University of Waterloo.
I regret that we cannot be of any further assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Walter D. Osborne, J.D. Supervisory Policy Analyst Office of the Executive Secretariat Edward A. Greenhalgh 265—Apt.7 Regina St. N., Waterloo, Ontario. N2J 3B9
(519) 884-3318
11 January 1996 David Kesseler Commissioner Food and Drug Administration Dept. of Health and Human Service: Public Health Service Rockville, MD. 20857
Dear Commissioner Kesseler:
Thank you for receiving this letter as I wish to take the opportunity to re—address my previous correspondence (10 June 94) regarding how RU 486 & arsenic (plus cancer & other goods) to kill the fetus in association with to restart the menstrual cycle. Since then, Dr.R. U. Hausknecht published a clinical study using a cancer drug and PG suppositories. Dr. Hausknecht deserves all the credit for his study, and only wish to point out that I had developed my related theories circa 1986. Yet, what remains valid from my earlier letter to you is the possibility of damage that may occur to the female’s ovaries from the cancer drug treatment. As already explained to you are potential simple experients that could be used to answer the question: how many abortions can a woman have with this technique? One? More than one? Are there long term effects?(as outlined previously) that need consideration? Again, Dr.Haueknecbt deserves all the credit for his clinical study in 1995; however, had my own work not been suppressed by the University of Waterloo, perhaps his clinical work could have been done in 1990 (5 years sooner with answers to the other questions: re., long term damage and exposure). Please review the copy of the letter sent to Mr. Zeno St. Cyr at Biomedical Research & Misconduct.
This present letter is not intended to take, anything away from Dr. Hausknecht, but, rather to (again) give a credible basis for my theories: since I believe that they will benefit society. As previously noted, I am in a bitter struggle with the University of Waterloo. Please read the newspaper article (Globe & Mail,04 Dec.95 in the letter to Premier Harris) outlining the (un)ethical difficulties that this university has placed itself through bad practices and administration. The Old Boy’s Network in science, as elsewhere, has a very hard time admitting that they can be wrong (hence silicon, DES disasters etc). Nonetheless this has been the case: The University of Waterloo deliberately sought to guarantee a family member a job irregardless of any ethical or moral considerations (even to using, I allege, political connections). To protect JCM Riley, the University of Waterloo suppressed, not only my work, but has harmed my career as well using all means at their disposal: including the unethical conduct of their legal representatives and I allege, influencing government agencies. That Canadian agencies can so be influenced has been demonstrated by the firing of a Pierre Blais at Health and Welfare Canada when he refused to pass the silicon implants as a safe procedure. In the end he help to overcome this terrible harm inflicted upon my work and person by an 2. institution that has no regards for scientific integrity nor ethical practices. I believe that my work/concepts will benefit mankind.
As with my previous RU-486 Cell Death Signal Theory outline, I wish to explain certain aspects of the Viroid Thermodynamic Theory on the Origin of Life (VTT), since there are direct implications to Aids and cancer research. The theory is not complete due the restrictive conditions I find myself in. Nevertheless, the direct relevance for the FDA from VTT involves Mr. Jeff Getty, the AIDS patient who received the baboon bone marrow transplant to rebuild his immune system (an FDA approved project) since baboons are immune to AIDS. I, sadly, believe that he, and other volunteers to follow, will die.
Before continuing, if the team proposing the baboon study is successful, then they will rightfully deserve a Nobel prize. I truly wish them success. Unfortunately, I do not appreciate their theoretical concepts. They may be taking too narrow a view of what the lymphocytes etc. will attack. The cells and associated antibodies developed from stem cells recognize self from not self – with a possible triggering/encoding mechanism in the thymus. Alas, I do not comprehend how the baboon cells will recognize human cells as self, especially due to the following:
(1)They are genetically coded.
(2)Mr. Getty’s mature thymus has (a) matured beyond being a strong influence (a reason older people lose their immunity), and (b) had been attacked/perhaps counter-coded by the AIDS virus (part of VTT).
VTT does not consider cancer and AIDS as classical diseases, but rather as evolutionary mechanisms possibly used to separate new subspecies (over simplification). A species (particularly regarding AIDS diseases) acquires immunity when its genome has “separated” itself genetically “far enough” from a common ancestra1 point by incorporating the “viroid” (a specific gene sequence of the virus a new gene in VTT) at specific sites on the genome (oversimplification with research necessary). The “new” subspecies is, then immune, while the older, genetically distant variant – common ancestor “(term conflict with applications) is not and is eliminated by death - AIDS virus. The viral (viroid) incorporation into the genome necessitates a changing genome. Time, also represents a drift, and viruses/viroids sequences can become lethal again to new species with this drift becoming too far from “safety sites” All, over—simplification. Please read the VTT section of, “A Formal Letter to the Attorney General of the United States...O1 May 1995” (the “v” pages).
Dear Commissioner Kesseler, I am not the world’s greatest scientist, only someone who is honest, cares and is committed. Perhaps you appreciate my situation as American media ran a background on your taking over the FDA outlined how you had to sort through a bureaucracy and people not performing competently. Please reflect upon 3.
this, and the newspaper article concerning the University of Waterloo. No one likes to receive negative comments, and yet I’ve been forced to deal with and overcome such a situation. I wish to stress my positive accomplishments (re: RU486 1994letter) in the face of extreme negativity. I believe that VTT is correct, perhaps not absolutely, but given the simple models I can develop related to ovarian cancer and AIDS, valuable clinical treatments may quickly follow. However, I need help.
I have alleged that JCM Riley lied to gain both his degree and entrance into Yale. The University of Waterloo is presently finding itself in dilemmas of its own making. Nonetheless, an American student (May 1995) was charged with fraud for gaining entrance into Yale for lying, regardless of how well he did while there. If oxidation damage occurs in the membrane preparation JCM Riley used to gain his Ph.D. and resultant entrance to Yale, than JCM. Riley has lied and my allegations are absolutely true. If absolutely necessary (no alternative can be found) then I will address these concerns to Yale University in a civil action since they accepted JCM Riley, and the liability for him. Since my suppressed thesis also criticized flaws found in the published work of Dr. H.R. Behrman then Yale gained by protecting Dr.H.R.Behrman’s reputation and hence their own. Dr. Behrman will have to pit his 1986-1986 published work up against my suppressed thesis for direct comparison. I believe that a very strong case can be made.
It would be nice if I am wrong about the baboon bone marrow technique. However, if Mr. Getty does die, I am not claiming such constitutes proof that VTT is correct, but hope to cause you to reflect upon helping me to continue the work. I wish to stress that new ideas and people are often perceived as threats and met with stiff resistance and meanness. I have faced more than my fair share of resistance, while my theories have stood up rather well. I need to go to a safe and friendly lab so to receive help to pursue the work. If there are any means available to you that can be used to help me continue the work, it would be most appreciated. Please read the “v” pages through.
Thank you for your time.
Very truly,
Edward A. Greenhalgh ACLUF LEGAL DEPARTMENT AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION ______
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS:132 WEST 43RD STREET,NEW YORK,N.Y.10036 (212944-9800 Fax (212)730-4658
January 23, 1995
Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina St. N. Waterloo, Ontario N2J 369 (519) 884-3318
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
This is in response to your January 12, 1995 letter to Steve Shapiro of the ACLU, which was referred to me for response. Your letter expressed concern that the University of Waterloo has engaged in misconduct in its scientific research and that you have been adversely affected by this misconduct.
Unfortunately, the ACLU will not be able to assist you in this matter. We are not in a position to assist you in proceeding against a Canadian university on a matter that is primarily a fact intensive scientific inquiry.
I am returning your materials in the enclosed package. I am sorry that we cannot be of further assistance and I wish you luck in the positive resolution of this matter.
Sincerely,
Julie Fernandes Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina St. N. Waterloo, Ontario N2J 369 (519) 884-3318
25 August 1992
President A. W. Schuele Hoechst Canada Inc. P0.B. 6160, Station A Montreal, Quebec H3C 3K8
Dear President Schuele:
I am writing an update to my 31 July 1992 letter. Your response can be considered no worse than other pharmaceutical firms. Those whose main goals are not exactly as my proposal wrote back saying so and wishing me well. The few firms where my proposal was exactly what their industry is based upon have simply avoided the issue. Although you are no worse than the industry standard; however, according to Quality Assurance, and Road Map to Problem Solving, shouldn’t you want to be better?
Please note the kind reply to my request for scientific papers from Dr. Ohno (21 July 1992 -The Ben Horowitz Chair of Distinguished Scientist. On a strictly scientific basis I receive considerable worldwide courtesy still. On a strictly scientific basis I wish to update my proposal and its benefit. Please contact Dr. Kott as I have explained the theoretical details to him; and if my theory (of evolution) is correct the benefits are immense. If 1 am correct, I may be able (within a year) produce a protein responsible for remission The protein could then be mass produced by genetic engineering. Is Hoechst going to turn such a project down? Again we can “brainstorm” the possibilities
On a sadder note, a poor individual (24 Aug. 1992) has settled a foolish dispute with Concordia by murdering people A tragedy. I asked you to read a Time magazine article concerning academic problems; further many people in the USA have settled dispute similarly. I, too, have been involved in an academic dispute; however, like Ms. O’Toole (and any proper pharmaceutical firm) I have retained legal counsel. McMilIan and Binch are proceeding with my plagiarism charge: such a responsible firm would not do so unless they were very convinced of the validity of the case. I have watched positions in England and the US disappear while driving a forklift for Hoechst. Nevertheless, I kept a good work record, a positive attitude and paid my bills (the Province has announced it is going after students who have defaulted the loans as far back as 1965). Do I not fit your Quality Values as the type of individual your QA program states you should support?
Why not meet with me and discuss the project? Taxol will soon be on the market, so why not have an equally valid alternative? I honestly do not see you risking very much capital on the project, while the returns are potentially incredible.
…2 - 2 -
As noted before, winners win because they have a winning attitude. They also make choices on proven track records. I have proven: 1.scientific ability 2.international recognition 3.a stable and good personality 4.a good work ethic.
C-22 guarantees patent protection, the GAIT guarantees international patent protection: so what is wrong with doing research in Canada with Canadians?
Again, I hope my letter has been positive. I hope you can see benefits for Hoechst and Canada. It’s up to you. Are you a winner?
Yours very truly,
Edward A. Greenhalgh ______HCCI______HCCI Management Services Inc. 4045 Cote Vertu Saint-Laurent Montréal, Québec H4R 1R6 September 11, 1992 Tel: (514) 333-3500 Fax: (514) 332-2526
800, René-Lévesque Blvd. West P.O. Box 6170, Station “A” Montréal, Québec H3C 3K8 Tel.:(514)871-5511 Fax.:(514)871-5635 Edward A. Greenhalgh 263-7 Regina Street North WATERLOO, Ontario N2J3B9
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Upon reading the documentation you forwarded to me on July 31st, which illustrates your impressive educational background, I can understand your sentiments on receiving notice of a job opening at our Resco Plant for general laborer positions. I would, however, like to clarify that it is the responsibility of our Human Resources representatives to advise all our employees affected by the recent business changes of any job openings available within our organization. This gesture on our part is in no way meant to lessen the importance of our employees’ qualifications, and was forwarded to all the Cambridge employees concerned.
It is a fact that our North American business orients itself towards the marketing of our product line and not in the domain of scientific research. Therefore, we cannot sponsor the type of research project you have presented.
I have asked Mr. Jean—Pierre Kolo to contact you in the near future to assess with you if there are any other avenues that you could explore.
I am confident that your experience and perseverance will lead you to a successful career and I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours.
Yours truly,
Alban W. Schuele President cc: J.P. Kolo Hoechst Canada Inc. 4045 Cote Vertu Montreal. Quebec H4R tR6 Tel. (514) 333-3500. Direct 333- Te!ex. 3505-824541 Fax. (514) 331-1526 November 4. 1992
Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina St. North Waterloo, ON N2J 3B9
Dear Ed:
Following up on the proposal that you had sent a month ago, I would like firstly to apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I did the best I could to explore all the avenues available to see if a grant of any type was possible. I am sorry to say that I have not been successful. Most of the budget available for goodwill or other public relations endeavors have been already earmarked for specific causes and projects, or allocated to ongoing events.
We appreciate the value and the benefits of the project you have submitted. However, as was mentioned to you before, Hoechst and Celanese are orienting their priorities to other areas at this time in Canada
Hoping that you will be able to find another source of funding, we wish you the best of success in your future endeavours and would be pleased to supply working references on your account to any potential employer.
Sincerely,
Jean-Pierre Kolodziej ski Manager, Human Resources Specialty Chemicals Group
2247C0RR.EGR
cc: A.W. Schuele - HCCI RESEARCH PROPOSAL
This research proposal has two parts:
One: A practical short term (one year) project to establish a work base.
Two: A longer term (to run concurrent to One) basic research project.
Both projects are eligible for government assistance and cost sharing with a private firm under existing NSERC, NRC and MRC programs. This should meet the spirit of Bill C-22.
Part One: Development of a New AIDS Test
The Federal government has set aside funding for AIDS research and should be interested in this project. Only a preliminary outline follows. On conditional approval actual cost estimate and logistics will be provided.
Broad Spectrum Analysis
Blood samples would be acquired from the Red Cross, hospitals and other clinics who would associate themselves with the project. Such involvement represents a positive and practical image to the public through a working relationship between a pharmaceutical firm, government and medical centres for medical research. The blood samples would be collected as required by law for safety and anonymously (ethical and privacy concerns) with a code designation, i.e., for collection source, disease condition, sex and age.
The first expense will be the fee applied to the participating agencies for collection and labeling of the blood samples. The samples will be transported to the testing facility. The second expense will be the fee applied to the use of the facility, equipment and any required personnel for necessary technical skills. Blood Testing would be: B. AIDS C. HERPES D. SYPHILIS E. CANCER - i.e. leukemia, i.e. lupus F. Influenza G. Meningitis (Concept of a spectrum because HIV may “piggyback” with other diseases. - 2 -
The chosen diseases could cover the following categories
i. Attacks e immune system ii. Not affect the immune system iii. Viral vs. bacterial iv. Affect or not the nervous system.
Testing to Develop Profiles (a cataloguing)
1. Microscopic examination (L .M. & E.M.) associated with video recording comparison and computer scanning and counting to produce a rapid comparison and contrast
2. Blood Segmentation
a. Fractional centrifugation methods to give: -Plasma -Solid segments - r.b.c. - other cells - viral, viroid, etc. - other (proteins, hormones, ions)
b. Examination of Segments
i. spectrophotometric profiles (i.e., light, flame) ii. chromatographic profiles iii. the solid segments can be examined for their physical components, i.e., membrane lipids can be compared iv. viroid, viral, etc., segments can be studied for known unknown particles using accepted culture methods.
The results of (2) may be used in a diagnostic computerized spectrophotometer scanner that could use a very small blood sample (not centrifuged) to clear and quickly diagnose a patient. The result would denote the total state – i.e., HIV present, helper virus present, associated protein present, etc. Normal vs. abnormal health states and how advanced any disease present would also be determined.
Further, once “catalogued” and all the components (HIV, satellite virus, etc.) detected then: - 3 -
i. A simple, i.e., anti-body test could be developed for a reliable “over-the-counter” AIDS test. There may be several levels of the disease and each could be identified. The potential is significant.
ii. If each state can be recognized, then different drug regimen may be used to “break the chain” and interrupt the disease with a less drastic therapy. Similarly, cancer treatments could be examined on this experimental theme.
Part Two: The Basic Research
To explore the theoretical work demonstrating the possibility that viruses are the basis of Life representing a “living crystal” concept controlled by the laws of thermodynamics. One experiment would make energy measurements based on the theoretical paper’s mathematical predictions (work presently iii progress). Then, an experimental model would be designed: i.e., the original prototype cell (a protocyte, to coin a phrase), from a virus, a protein and a micelle/vesicle. Another area would examine viral induced lysis in cells — the actual genes activated plus the formed products from a variety of infected bacteria. These would then be compared to an evolved cell model. One such model is the luteal cell and regression lysis. By comparing the gene sequences, lysis as evolutionary conservation may be explored. Part of the evolutionary study is the central theorem of the conservation of genes (a vivid example is the use of coral in bone surgery). Coral is quickly accepted by the body. Similar genes from two dissimilar organisms: the genes were conserved to be utilized by higher organisms.
The lysis mechanism (see my papers v125(3) J. Endo 1990 and the mention of a possible cell death signal), related parts and functions, should prove, on a wide scale, to be of medical .importance.
Lvsis and cell death (for a variety of cells). There may be a common (conserved) gene sequence with related (i.e., enzyme) components that are activated.
The Important Occurrences: red blood cells and aging; muscle atrophy which may be healthy (i.e., the decrease in uterium size post partum) or dangerous (i.e., heart damage as in ischemia and heart disease).
Whv cancer cells do not lyze: Either because the gene sequence is absent or blocked. Therefore, can the proper gene sequence be specified and the cancer cells then be given a specific signal and told to “die”, i.e., with a cell specific signal drug. earch Go -4-
Basic Research Goals
a. To discover how viruses were developed to seek and attach to the cell, etc.: all of which have significant consequences to viral control and drug delivery
b. How self and identity of self (of the cell and the environment) were developed.
c. How control of lysis was developed, with consequences to reproduction, arthritis and feedback to the brain.
d. How the colony (higher organism) was developed: healthy coexistence and its implications
e. How the nucleus and genome evolved: how energy was stored in the nucleus and passed along.
f. Development of membranes and how the proteins (enzymes) came to be placed in same. This has implications for disease control and drug delivery. Theory Outline and Reference Request to: Manfred Eigen James Lovelock Lynn Marglis Carl. R. Woese
Dear Colleagues,
A collective outline is used, since interlocking themes in you work have been found and incorporated into a project: The Viroid-Thermodynamic Theory tot he Origin of Life (V.T.T.). The concept examines the origin via electrons (d-orbitals specifically) and metal ions. V.T.T. grew from my proposed Cell Death Signal. (J. Endo 125, 1990) and uses GAIA/Daisy World, as a logical metaphor for molecular origins and the broad continuation of Le Chatlier’s Principle. Similarly, hypercycles/quasispecies are viewed as part of the evolutionary tree extending to progenotes/archaebacteria. A logical blending of my theories (the following precis is no way complete since the ion explanation exceeds 40 pages of draft).
Extending GAlA, to develop “life” a planet. must have a thermonuclear core whose temperature is necessary for chemical reactions, and (perhaps more importantly) provides a source of electrons. Dr. S. Ohno waxed poetic…...there was darkness, and then there was, the word”. Where in .the Bible quote refers to the Genetic Code. DNA/RNA develop via evolution, but the roundabout point pertaining to GAlA, and folklore is lightning’s place of importance. In V.T.T., electrons are a must. Life (chemical reactions -a special case thereof) cannot occur without the thermonuclear reactions (do not forget that wonderful, insulating, protective mantle) supplying electrons. Specific ions (electron orbitals and atomic radii) and water (Lauffer’s hydrophobic entropy) all interacted (at one phase) to begin “life”, while later phases (different) continued the chemical reaction (i.e., redox vs. photosynthesis and special cases of resonance. Very simplified).
Viroids (earliest RNA, re: hypercycles) and soap fi1ms (micelles, lipid membranes, etc) are “reflections” leading to the (protocyte) cell (a partitioning for energetic and hydrophobic reasons) and finally (via Woese) the multicellular organism And the genetic code developed (the metal ions are important – as and more than catalysts in the hypercycles – theory) that has continued to today. A genetic code developed with more than all the obvious rules that are memorized to date. V.T.T. seeks to explain the speed and parallelism of evolution that point mutations can not (too slow, too haphazard, and at first looks a lot like Lamarckism, but obeys Darwin quite well). Remember, Barbara McClintock and “moveable genes” stuck in the dogma throat of established science for a long while before understanding and acceptance followed. Nothing new, just observations to be analyzed and logically explained (V.T.T. that is).
Here is a playful extension of V.T.T.: SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has determined (and quite cleverly) that the H20 frequency is the signal to use to aim their radiotelecopes V. T. T. would suggest that H20 phobia (ice exists in space devoid of life), and, more specifically, ION-H20 interaction. (repulsion) frequency might be another choice. Water is necessary to support life, but if V. T. T. is correct, it is the ionic hydrophobic repulsion that started life (and still maintains it, N B: membrane barriers etc). ETI may view this (if such exists) as the sign of ultimate consciousness to be able to recognize your origins (a baby discovers that it is no a separate species from its parents).
Let’s extend V.T.T. (and GAIA) further. Viroids/RNA ions, quasispecies, etc) are essentially the origin and life: everything else is sophistication and permutation on a theme (Fraenkel-Conrat was criticized in 1962, and I am Not taking away from anyone, but building on earlier ideas.) Viruses have a strong sybiosis with their host (they aren’t parasites, an evolutionary process is being maintained; and, like the GAIA/\DNA metaphor, it is a continuum, only our relativity viewpoint colors the label). GAIA will correct the situation as part of the ongoing reaction, and V.T.T. is merely another vantage point. Viroids/RNA are the original engine of GAIA: a continuum that has never gone away. Only our arrogance has put the multicellular organism penultimate. As mankind overpopulates and encroaches on nature (eliminating species and habitats) viruses will continue since they were the originators (“having written the rule book”) and adapted to all the changing environs that Earth presented. Viruses/viroids mutate incredible (actually, mathematically it is limited) and such is part of their original life reaction state. Viroids/viruses which originally created the cell (as man creates his artificial savannahs) and then the mutlicellular organism, will not perish if any one cell type ceases to be available (i.e., if a car is broken, the driver gets into another. Simplistic but an illustration). They mutate/adapt, such was, and is, their strategy (to evolve).
Another simplistic example is HIV and the green monkey which was once relatively isolated. The frequency of encounter (including scientific intrusion for specimens) with man increases while the virus loses its symbiotic host and must move to the next possibility of longevity. Viruses do not kill (natural) hosts however, until a long term relationship is formed (the origin of immune systems until ACCOMMODATION takes place (my term, though others may have already coined it), death occurs. This is an evolutionary failsafe: movement from one species to another (V.T.T. also discusses a mechanism of change) more dominant, but dominance must be established by an Accommodation test period. Prediction: HIV (unless other possibilities follow) will eventually be accommodated by man as in the green monkey (precedents exist).
Back to GAlA, The Healing of the Planet and overpopulation. As man e1rminates’species their symbiotic viruses will not go away, but move over to man. This wilI 1. Eliminate man (a) completely, (b) partially (a crash) and restore GAlA’s equilibrium (a Le Chateher’s principle explained in V.T.T) . 2. Become incorporated into man by (a) accommodation, (b)evolution - genome incorporation (explained in V.T.T.) and the species will change (evolve). Point One represents a very good reason for present day man to resist pollution and overpopulation, etc. As species are eliminated mankind will experience many “new” plagues as the “displaced” viruses seek new hosts. Many others are stating the same, but V.T.T. is an amalgam of interrelated logical arguments with models/experiments to prove the theory. V.T.T. seeks support through collaboration.
Past success was due an openness and willingness to accept (and test) both sides of an argument. “My” work is actually the ability to read widely “and arrange others ideas in logical sequences for testing; and would not exist except for the kindness of good people whose ideology appears to be a commitment to science. Please realize“ that my J. Endo papers would Not exist, period, if the editors and staff at the J. Endo (U.K.), Dr. G. L. Nicolson, plus others hadn’t reached out to total stranger. Just as I am approaching you with the new theory/project.
V.T.T can be proven with computer models and lab experiments to give practical applications (perhaps an explanation/treatment for breast cancer: industrial age pollution and “conserved” lysogeny). I am presently seeking funding for the project that has been growing over the past few years. I am not asking you for funding, nor facilities, but to consider the possibility of acting as an outside senior reviewer/editor/author. My wife and I wish to remain in Canada, and only an academic dispute has slowed the project (my earlier work after being criticized as wrong was plagiarized by my critics: an apology, etc, is sought) Given modern Communication/computer technology, collaboration should not be a problem. In my approaches for funding, the mention of interested parties would be an immense help.
Disputes can be ugly and unnecessary, but do occur, especially when an old, heavily relied upon for funding model becomes obsolete. Being human, people tend to hang on and on and sometimes when they should let go they can’t so that harm results. I do not wish your involvement in the dispute, but eventually would come up (as in the past with others). Viruses/viroids were not my original interest (having published in two entirely separate fields: toxicology and endocrinology but serves to prove my only interest is science. If it is absolutely necessary, I can demonstrate my every effort to avoid the dispute, but the new theorv is much more exciting. Besides, you all have tremendous experience in academia, so nothing under the sun should be surprising. Any help towards the V.T.T. project would be appreciated.
I hope you find my enthusiasm refreshing. If you can not collaborate, please send me copies of your publications and/or reference lists since the work is important to V.T.T. Perhaps you could make positive overtures to other interested parties. I am a positive person who has survived due to the kindness of special people.
If you wish to encourage the project I can be reached via my home address:
Edward A. Greenhalgh Ph. 1-(519) 884-3318 265-7 Regina St. N. Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9 Canada Or care of Dr. Ed Kott Ph. 1-(519) 886-1970. EXT. 2313 Fax 1-(519) 886-9351 Wilfrid Laurier University 75 University Ave.W Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5 Canada If you require more detail I will gladly provide more. If you wish you can also contact Dr. Kott directly. Thank you for considering my thoughts and ideas. Your kindness is appreciated. Yours truly.
Edward A. Greenhalgh Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-Apt.7 Regina St.N., Waterloo, Ontario. N2J 3B9
Dr.Kirsty Dunkin Geography Dept., (519)-884-3318 Rm. 50-2 Windsor Hall S. 20 June 1996 University of Windsor 401 Sunset Ave., Windsor , Ontario. N9B 3P4
Dear Dr.Dunkin:
I saw the Global Newscast(19 June 96) and Janice Dickin describing the 1919 flu epidemic and. your plans to exhume bodies in Spitzbergen. Upon telephoning the University of Windsor I was given your name. Please, if you go forward with your project, could you also take DNA samples? I have discussed a similar project with Dr.Ed Kott at Laurier several years ago regarding evolution and “viral control” (contact at 519— 884—1970 ext. 3313). Enclosed is a copy of a presentation given at Guelph (10 May 96): The Viroid Thermodynamic Theory on the Origin of Life (VTT). The FDA (plus others) have reviewed outlines. VTT considers viruses to control and direct evolution. Very briefly, people (AIDS babies in particular) who are immune (or survive) AIDS have special/changed genomes: a genetic evolution. To give an advantage to the “new” genome, killer diseases, like flue follow along and remove large numbers of the older genome. NB: example; the Inuit died of colds and flus upon first meeting white people. DNA samples of exhumed victims to survivors can be compared for changes ( probably very small changes). Answers to evolution may be gained. All the above is well over-simplified. I do believe it to be vitally important for you to take DNA samples though. Please review the FDA and Huntsman letters to appreciate my sincerity and depth of the research; and the fact that Guelph invited me to their conference. Please be aware that advanced research often brings political difficulties; and so I’ve had my share. I expect issues to be resolved, but because VTT has such pressing implications I had to contact you now so not lose the opportunity to have DNA samples collected. A resume is enclosed (you are geography, I, biology) to explain who I am, my credentials and publications only. Please review the copy of VTT, but realize that it is no way complete: an outline only as explained to Dr. Rieger as there is too much material. Please feel free to contact myself or Dr. Kott. Please take the DNA samples because if VTT is correct then killer flue may be following HIV. My past theories have all been vindicated. Thank you.
Very truly,
Edward A. Greenhalgh. THE HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
May 26, 1986
Edward A. Greenhalgh Apt. 7-265 Regina St., N. Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3E9
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
This is a reply to your letter of the 20th of May. I found your project well worthy of pursuing for a Ph.D. program. It is both interesting and has good prospect of proliferating into clinically relevant problems. Unfortunately funds for salary support are not immediately available to consider your acceptance into the Ph.D. program. If, however, you are capable of obtaining salary support from some agency e.g. NSERC or MRC, I would gladly consider your application for Ph.D. studies in the Department of Pharmacology.
Sincerely,
C.R. Pace-Asciak, Ph.D. Professor Departments of Pediatrics and Pharmacology THE HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Edward A. Greenhalgh, June 27, l988 265-7 Regina Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Thank you for your letter of June 12th and the material you enclosed as weIl as the interest you have again expressed in joining my group. Unfortunately, the situation has changed considerably since we last met. Although your project appears to be an exciting one, it is too far away from my interests to pursue it with me. I would suggest discussing it with somebody slanted towards endocrinology. I will therefore not be able to consider you for graduate studies in my laboratory.
I am returning your material. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours.
With best regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Cecil R. Pace-Asciak. Ph.D. Professor Division of Neurosciences Department of Pediatrics and Pharmacology
CRP:lm Enclosure TORONTO UNIVERSITY GENERL OF HOSPITAL TORONTO Division of Rheumatology Carl A. Laskin. MD. FRCP(C) Departments of Medicine 200 Elizabeth Street and Immunology Eaton Wing North Department of Obstetrics Ground Floor – Room 242 and Gynecology Toronto, Ontario Canada M5G 2C4 SLE Research Laboratory 416-595-4122 Reproductive Biology Programme Max Bell Research Centre Room 1-901 April 25, 1989 Toronto General Hospital
Mr. Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina St. N. Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9 Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
I reviewed all of the material that you sent to me in great detail. I must say from the outset that your research is so far afield from my work that I am nowhere near an expert to evaluate your studies. However, what impressed me was that they appear to be creative and provocative. I think you have something there and it is probably worthwhile pursuing. However, far be it from me as an immunologist and rheumatologist to be able to suggest any direction in which you should take this. I feel that you need the advice of a reproductive endocrinologist who is familiar with this area. I know of no one here who is qualified to examine this work and perhaps you might try to contact an endocrinologist to help you out in that respect.
With respect to your reviews that you received from the Journal of Endocrinology I was struck by the care and detail that these reviewers put into their comments. Although you may feel differently I honestly feel these individuals have bent over backwards in trying to help you constructively put together a manuscript that is acceptable for a peer review journal. It is obvious that these individuals are enthusiastic about your work and are not trying to block it. In fact, they have actually invited you to resubmit these papers once further work has been done to repackage them in a manner more suitable for a peer review journal.
It is obvious that you really need some advice on how to proceed in your area. Firstly, I am not a basic scientist, and secondly, I am not a reproductive endocrinologist. I do not feel that I am qualified to give you the advice that you so desperately seek. I would have to suggest that you look elsewhere and the place to start would be with the Chairman of a Department of Physiology at some university.
I hope I have been of some help and consolation to you in your plight. I wish you best of luck in future endeavors.
Yours sincerely,
Carl A. Laskin, MD, FRCP(C) CAL/kp CIBA-GEIGY CANADA LTD. CIBA— GEIGY 6860 Century Avenue Mississauga. Ontario L5N 2W5 Tel. (416) 567-3400 Fax (41 6) 821-0755 PHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION
Evert C. Vos, MD, PhD Vice President Medical Affairs and Research & Development
May 7, 1990
Edward E. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina Street North Waterloo, ON N2J 3B9
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Thank you for your letter of March 30, 1990 in which you request funding in order for you to pursue a PhD in England. CIBA-Geigy does not have a program for support of this kind. However, we do sponsor with the Medical Research Council, studentships and fellowships. This information is attached.
I would suggest that you apply on the relevant MRC Grant Application form and note in the upper right hand corner that you are applying for the CIBA-Geigy/MRC Program.
I thank you for your interest in CIBA-Geigy and I wish you every success.
Sincerely,
ECV/bec attach. CIBA—GEIGY CANADA LTD. 6860 CemuryAvenue Mississauga.. Cn~no L5N 2W5 TeL (416)557-3400 Fax (416) 82-C755
PHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION
Evert C. Vos. M.D. PhD Vice President Medical Affairs and Research & Development
August 19, 1992
Mr. E.A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina Street North Waterloo, ON N2J 389
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Thank you for your letter of July 21, 1992 together with the enclosures.
I regret to have to inform you that we, ourselves, do not do basic, fundamental research in Canada. All our research, both pre-clinical and clinical, is contracted out. The projects we are engaged in are strictly in support of the Company’s strategic goals. It is, therefore, not possible to budget support either in personal grant support or operational grant support for the work that you envisage to do.
Thank you for your interest in CIBA-Geigy and I wish you every success in reaching your objectives.
Yours sincerely,
E9C\bec BURROUGHS WELLCOME INC. 16751 route Transcanadienne Trans-Canada Road April 16, 1990 Kirkland, Quebec H9H 4J4
Mr. Edward A. Greenhalgh 265 — 7 Regina Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9 Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Thank you for writing to Burroughs Wellcome Inc. regarding sponsorship of your planned doctoral studies in England. Your desire to pursue studies in the fields of endocrinology, neurology and lymphatics is commendable.
Regretfully Burroughs Wellcome Inc. is unable to grant you financial support for this.
Thank you for your interest in Burroughs Wellcome and best wishes with your future endeavors.
Sincerely, Marco Petrella, B.Sc., M.Sc. Manager, Clinical Research (Post-Marketing) cc: Dr. M. Fletcher
PTR/ble BURROUGHS WELLCOME INC. 16751 route TransCanadlenne Trans-Canada Road Kirkland, Québec H9R4J4
March 23, 1992
Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
Dear Mr: Greenhalgh:
Thank you for your letter of March 11, 1992
I regret to inform you that we are unable to assist you at present: You will understand that the volume of such requests that we receive is enormous and our criteria for funding must therefore be fairly narrow.
As requested please find enclosed your material.
May I take this opportunity of wishing you success with this most worthwhile endeavour.
Yours sincerely,
Francois Lebel, MD, FRCPC Medical Director LBL/ber Enc.
Tél.: (514) 694-8220 Telex: 05-821860 Fax: (514) 694-8201 Cables: Tabloid Montréal Roussel Canada Inc.
DONALD BUXTON President
February 25, 1992
Mr. Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina St. North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Thank you for your note concerning your research proposal.
Unfortunately, it does not fit the profile of our current research program or orientation, and we must, therefore, respond negatively. As requested, I am returning all your documentation, and I wish you every success in finding a sponsor to fund your activities.
\Enclosures
4045 Cete Vertu, Montréal, Québec, Canada H4R 2E8 Tel. 333-2910 Fax 333-2999 Roche
March 27, 1992
Mr. Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
Dear Mr Greenhalgh,
Your letter of February 27, 1992, has been referred to me as Dr. Eric Bandle is no longer with ‘Roche’ Canada.
Basic research of the kind you propose is not done at ‘Roche’ Canada, therefore we are returning your letter and materials.
Thank you for your interest in ‘Roche’ and good luck in your future endeavours.
Yours very truly,
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LIMITED
Dr. med. Werner M. Enz Group Director, Marketing Pharmaceuticals
WE/mt
Enclosures
Hoffmann-La Roche Limited/Limitée Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina St. N. Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9 (519)884-3318 6 July 1992
Pres. Geraldine Kenny-Wallace Presidentts Office McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L3
Dear President Kenny-Wallace:
I recently saw you on CBC’s News World (with Bucky Ball’s), commenting on how I you see a more competitive Canada where we must develop the technology if we are to survive. Please forgive me, but I don’t believe you! You can prove me wrong if you meet with me to discuss my research proposal. I’ve had encouraging responses from several major pharmaceutical companies and two are now giving serious consideration for funding said work. To clinch the monies I will need to be associated in a positive way with a major institution.
Are you up to it? Are you positive and progressive? I enclose photocopies of my research proposal and early letters to Dr. Rosenthal. His lack of reply (the pharmaceutical Presidents and CEOs have replied to my letters, as have Mr. Rae and Mr. Mulroney) forms a negative statement about your position and university. I I need to meet positive people. Can we discuss this in person.
I am a positive person with a track record of success. Strong secure people seek I successful people to build winning teams. I am not a simple colourless person. I have taken strong stands in the past on. scientific integrity. I have paid my dues. I am greatly encouraged to hear that Margo O’Toole has received a full apology from Dr. Baltimore (the associate being convicted of fraud) and has found a prominent position with a new university. I encourage you to contact my references for a personal evaluation (Dr. Rosenthal has my resume).
I believe I would be a positive asset for a successful team. I need to meet positive and secure people. Are you one such person? Your reply will form the answer. I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours very truIy
Edward A. Greenhalgh
Er.c!o~ure Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina St. N. Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
9 February 1992
Dr. Kenneth L. Rosenthal McMaster University Dept. of Molecular Virology & Immunology 1280 Main St. W. Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8
Dear Dr. Rosenthal:
I wish to share an opportunity of mutual benefit if you allow me to bring my own funding for the enclosed research project. I need to be associated with a facility and open-minded progressive people to share ideas and techniques. I am presently circulating the proposal to a number of large pharmaceutical firms who in the past made favourable comments. My life has changed considerably since the earlier proposal with the chances of success much improved. Do you choose success ?
You were shown on the television news receiving funding from the major banks: an entirely separate issue. My proposal is to fund my own work in a shared exchange. Only a personal discussion can clarify the many questions you no doubt have.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours Very Truly,
Edward A. Greenhalgh Edward A. Greenhalgh 265—7 Regina St. N., Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
(519)-884-3318
27 February 1992
Dr. Kenneth L. Rosenthal McMaster University Dept. of Molecular Virology & Immunology 1280 Main St.W., Hamilton, Ontario. LES 4L8
Dear Dr. Rosenthal:
I am following up my proposal letter of the 9th Feb. 92. You have not responded. I have written Prime Minister Mulroney informing him of my intent to push Bill 0-22 to the limit in my quest to bring funding and research to Canada. My query is :
Are you turning down additional funding?
AIDS must not be very serious to turn down additional research especially a person who has published three single author papers in leading journals. No doubt you have your reasons. Please return my material if you are not interested. Most Sincerely,
Edward A. Greenhalgh
P.S. If (for whatever reason) you have not been able to reach me, Dr. Ed Kott at WLU (519)-884-1970 ,ext. 2313)will gladly speak with you. The John P. Robarts RESEARCH INSTITUTE
June 28, 1993
Mr Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Thank you for your letter of June 2 1st. I understand and have quite some sympathy for your predicament. You are obviously a man of scientific creativity and considerable thought. Unfortunately the system which dictates the way we do science in Canada, and this is especially so at the Robarts Research Institute, requires quite a strict adherence to certain protocol. In my own Institute it is a necessity that all investigators have advanced degrees (Ph.D or M.D.) so that all of them may be funded by either the Medical Research Council of Canada, the National Science and Engineering Research Council, or one of the health oriented research agencies. Unfortunately I don’t believe that you would qualify for any of these and as such a position at the Robarts would be unlikely.
The only types of positions that I think would be available to you would be those in individual laboratories funded by scientists as opposed to Department Chairs, research institute Directors, etc. While there are no such individuals in your area at the present time at the Robarts or at the Siebens-Drake Institute, I would encourage you in your looking for a job in other areas in Canada and the United States to attempt to get individual scientists interested in your work and allow them to hire you on a individual laboratory basis.
I apologize for not being able to be of greater help and I wish you the best.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Poznansky, Ph.D. President, Scientific Director
MJP:bh
P.O. Box 5045, 100 Perth Drive, London Ontario N6A 5K8 (519) 663-5777 Fax (519) 663-3789 Affiliated with University Hospital and The University of Western Ontario OMBUDSMAN June 19, 1996 ONTARIO
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C7 Telephone: (416) 586-3300 Mr. Edward Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina Street North Apartment #7 Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Re: Our File No. 109061 OHRC File No. SW-01579
Thank you for your letter of May 23, 1996.
We have now had the opportunity to review the information that you have provided. In order to complete our review we require the following documentation for your file:
1) Your original complaint that you submitted to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
2) The original case analysis on which the Commission based its original decision.
3) The original decision issued by the Commission.
4) Any respondent’s responses that you received from the Commission.
Once you have provided these documents, we will advise you how we intend to proceed with your complaint.
I would also remind you of certain limitations on the Ombudsman’s ability to recommend that the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s decision be changed or that further reconsideration occur.
25 Queen’s Park Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C7 Telephone (416) 586-3300 TTY: (416) 586-3510 Facsimlie (416) 586-3485 TTY: (416) 586-3510 1(800) 263-1830 (English) 1(800) 387-2620 (Francais) -2-
Our File No. 109061
OMBUDSMAN Under s.37 (3) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, once an issue has been reconsidered by the ONTARIO Commission its “decision shall be final”. This means that after the Commission completes its reconsideration and issues a final decision, it no longer has the legal power to reopen, re- investigate or further reconsider the matter. Where there is no statutory power to reconsider, a statutory body like the OHRC may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances may be situations where the Commission has done its job so badly that, according to the tests laid down by the courts of law, it really has not done it at all. As this is the exception to the rule, these circumstances are few. It is, therefore, quite possible that the OmbudsmanI may not be able to make a recommendation which would be of any direct benefit to you. In other words, even if the Ombudsman supports your complaint, it may well be that any I recommendation made would be only of a future benefit to the general public and the OHRC.
As our office has received a number of similar complaints regarding the Commission, the I Ombudsman is presently considering how to best proceed to deal with these complaints expeditiously. I I will advise you once she has reached her decision on your complaint. I
Yours sincerely, I
I Perry Gerhard Senior Investigator /dm
GRENHAL.DOC Edward A. Greenhalgh 265—Apt 7 Regina St,N., Waterloo, Ontario. N2J 3B9
(519) 884-3318
Perry Gerhard Senior Investigator 23 May 1996 Ombudsman Ontario 125 Queen’s Park Toronto, Ontario. M5S 2C7
(416)—586—3300
File # 109061
Dear Mr. Gerhard:
Thank you for your correspondence dated 22 Apr. 96, re our earlier telephone conversation. Before proceeding with any civil action against Yale University and Dr.H.R.Behrman, the allegations of misconduct against Commissioner Rosemary Brown and the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) must be outlined for what they were: deliberate and pre-meditated with influences from powerful politically and financially connected sources. Although OHRO may well have “systemic” problems associated with bureaucracy and incompetence, the Greenhalgh case represents something much more. I allege deliberate political intervention and corruption to protect the University of Waterloo (and consequently, Yale). Dear Mr. Gerhard, please recognize this correspondence for what it is: a listing of grievances that if can not be corrected through the Office of the Ombudsman will be presented to many agencies, American and Canadian; public and private; and the media, while I seek legal counsel for numerous actions: both against Yale and OHRC. Please realize this listing can not be complete as there are boxes of material (as noted to ORRC), and any ruling you make without actually meeting me (in person) will only be viewed as misrepresentative at best, and at worst, part of an ongoing cover-up. I shall first ask the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States (with letters to the RCMP and the FBI) for rulings, and if criminal charges are not brought (including an investigation of Dr. Lyle Bivens at the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of NIH,) then a civil action will be sought against Yale as per the last letters from the American Justice Dept. and Health and Human services. 2.
To Establish That E.A.Greenhalgh behaved properly, ethically and legally, and did more than should be expected of ANY INDIVIDUAL! E.A.Greenhalgh has gone to ALL the PROPER authorities who have behaved, at best poorly, and at worst, have indulged in misconduct and collusion to protect special interests: specifically reputations of Yale and Waterloo universities and personnel. Any time loss, re limitations, will be the responsibility of authorities being derelict in duties and obligations to the public trust and safety, and may involve their violations of guidelines, rules, regulations and laws. Time loss was due to agencies engaged in misconduct (conspiracy). In a society where:
(a) Mr.Fabrikant kills people (b) Oklahoma bombing (c) Unabomber plus others taking the law (and lives) into their own hands over frustration with incompetent and/or corrupt bureaucracies; my case will be important for society to see that the law would rather a citizen which is patient and law abiding be accommodated, than encourage the above mentioned violence. In short, if this case goes to the media/public, it will demonstrate that either law abiding citizens are respected, or the authorities themselves encourage a violent society. I believe, in the case of a demonstrated conspiracy, especially in the wake of Pres. Clinton’s apology for the radiation experiments of 50 yrs. ago, a civil action will be allowed to go forward.
OHRC and Chief Commissioner Rosemary Brown: Prime Examples of Misconduct.
Chief Comm. R. Brown and OHRC are not the only individual and agency to (allegedly) act to protect the University of Waterloo (and therefore, Yale) by misconduct, but are the latest with a long paper trail in a long chain of authorities whom have been derelict, and, worst (allegedly) in collusion to violate my rights etc.
Fallacy OHRC vs. E.A.Greenhalgh as a systemic problem. The allegation is that OHRC engaged in deliberate misconduct in collusion with (either or all) provincial, federal and university authorities to specifically prevent E.A.Greenhalgh’s claim from finding a ruling against the University of Waterloo.
Why? What was the Motivation?
To protect the University of Waterloo, and Yale University. Both, to receive federal monies, especially NIH for J.C.M.Riley’s scholarship at Yale, but also NRC funding (1984 to 1994), had to give WRITTEN, SIGNED ASSURANCES that they met certain standards and guidelines. The Greenhalgh work would not have allowed the graduation of J.C.M.Riley Ph.D. due very serious flaws.
3. The Greenhalgh work also outlined serious flaws in H.R.Behrman’s work of 1986 to 1988 (N.B. I would enjoy having Behrman’s work publicly examined against my suppressed work etc.)J.C.M.Riley’s background (or lack) etc is well outlined in the OHRC documents and other correspondence. Also see, Five Direct Questions asked of OHRC (never answered). In short, both Yale and Waterloo could face fraud charges for giving false assurances, or at the very least have their status reviewed. However, if E.A. Greenhalgh’s rights and works were suppressed, no one would be the wiser. This is a very serious allegation,alleging both intent and premeditation. There is much more documented detail.
So What has Misconduct by OHRC got to do with Federal Fraud?
Everything! Had OHRC ruled in E.A.Greenhalgh’s favor, then this would constitute proof that UW had lied to federal agencies (Canadian and (US. Further, Dr.H.R.Behrman and Yale would be viewed as co—conspirators, hence a federal US. investigation. Therefore, due to POLITICAL pressure, 0FRC COULD NOT rule in Greenhalgh’s favor, iregardless of documentation, or proof, or anything. However, the sections cited, 34 etc are very lame duck excuses. In. essence, they admit that E.A.Greenhalgh WAS CORRECT only he did not file a complaint on time! trying to avoid a fight, harming others, but trying to pursue scientific research instead.
Blacklisting Did Not Stop: Time Limit a False Argument Blacklisting was explained to OHRC, which refused to examine the provided material, NOR meet with the victim. OHRC had a PRE PREPARED REPORT (re. Barker & Kalimootoo - details and other material available; OHRC meeting with UW personnel) a negative response, and wasn’t about to do a proper investigation.
Time Limit & Blacklisting (1) UW refused to help (Greenhalgh) to continue the work even though requested in writing: personally and legal. Universities are expected to help new graduates with references, job referrals, scholarships etc. UW refused to help E.A.Greenhalgh to continue the work, and as such clearly establishes that the Administration was mean- spirited and vindictive: of the nature necessary to engage in blacklisting.
(2) E.A.Greenhalgh wrote (cost: hundreds of dollars) researchers in Canada, US and England pursuing a research position: plus pharma-ceuticals for research funding. Greenhalgh was interested in positive solutions, not a feud.
(3) UW had the powerful connections to blacklist. Douglas Wright was a former P.C. cabinet minister who supported Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell (also supported by Tom Wright, Privacy Comm.), Trevor Eyton was a UW senator, associated with a large conglomerate and appointed a federal senator by Brian Mulroney to pass the GST. J.C.Carlson had direct academic relations to J.T.Dorrington (UT) and both associated with H.R.Behrman of Yale. Carlson also had connections to Dr.Hansel at Cornell. Do we have transcripts of these people plotting against Greenhalgh, or is this a demon- stration of powerful connections? The real question is: did any of these individuals and UW (as it is supposed to) help the former student promote new research etc.? Please note, proper supervisors and universities have obligations to help former students with funding, introductions, and positions. No one at UW helped Greenhalgh, BUT everyone went out of their way to PROMOTE J.C.M.Riley. And to protect H.R.Behrman at Yale.
MAIN POINT: Blacklisting (human, civil & Charter rights violations) were continuous on the part of agents representing the interests of UW. OHRC Time Limit section etc. DOES NOT apply. OHRC refused to investigate, and was derelict in its obligations and duties, and so engaged in misconduct. A very strong allegation.
Time Limit: Canadian Courts and Corruption Allegations
My original law firm, Campbell, Godfrey & Lewtas should have launched an immediate suit in 1988, I have been informed by the firm of Elliot, Rodriquez & Daffern. Instead, they dropped the case sending my lawyer to Australia. John Godfrey is a liberal senator. I wrote Pierre E.Trudeau (who enshrined the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Constitution). He was TOO busy writing books to care about a just society or Charter abuses. His protege, Jean Chretien was out of politics and in law, but Mr.Trudeau did not recommend him: so their commitment to the Constitution may be questioned. Sheila Copps was approached. She did nothing. Alan Borovoy, Pres. of CCLU: did nothing. Edward Greenspan, VP of CCLU: no reply. Izzy Asper: no reply Judy Rebick: no reply Sunera Thobani: no reply Eric Mailing: no reply Patrick Watson: no reply
There were many prominent Canadians, who thump their chests and whine about the constitution and rights, were approached, but who did nothing, Just like OHRC turning down all the documentation.
Paul Bernardo is a rapist, torturer and murderer, yet everyone wanted to PROTECT his LEGAL, CIVIL and CHARTER RIGHTS! Our system bent over backwards to PROTECT HIS RIGHTS (thousands and thousands of dollars were spent for his legal defense from legal aid.)It appears that the Charter is only for criminals.
E.A.Greenhalgh has been punished by Rosemary Brown and OHRC for acting cautiously and not in an artificial time frame. E.A. Greenhalgh had a legal aid certificate with Senator John Godfrey’s firm (senators are supposed to uphold the constitution, the Charter and citizen’s rights). But Godfrey’s firm dropped the case and no other firm would again deal with it under legal aid, demanding thousands up front. Please note Paul Bernardo wasn’t treated this shabbily. The allegation is that powerful forces threatened lawyers so that the statutes of limitations would pass.
It is a realistic allegation, the “Mulroney Connection (Maclean’s Sept. 25/95) will be cited to influence’s power: “in an 86 page ruling, Lederman declared that Bitove had used its access to former P.M. Mulroney during negotiations and received a ‘substantial windfall’ as a result...It would be naive to believe public servants are not susceptible to political influence (under1ining added, EAG) the judge said. Their careers may depend on how responsive they are to their political masters.”
To this add the names of Pierre Blais, and Michelle Brill-Edwards, (1) Pierre Blais lost his job with Health and Welfare Canada when he refused to approve silicon implants. Harm followed. 2) Michelle Brill-Edwards questioned the safety of the heart drug ADALAT. She finally resigned her position with Health & Welfare Canada after many difficulties. (3) The Krever Commission is being harassed, not over public safety, but for holding politicians accountable. Public Safety vs. Jobs for Family & Friends E.A. Greenhalgh explained to OHRC about J.C.M.Riiey’s family connections: please note that the Five Direct Questions were never answered.
The Westray mine inquiry has reported that inspectors were allegedly told to keep the mine open to provide work because B.Mulroney received his first seat there. Miners died.
Who is Katherine Wright, and what is her relationship to Douglas and Tom Wright? Where is she now? She is no longer an anchor on CBC television.
P.M.Chretien appointed his nephew as ambassador to the US. His son-in—law is alleged to have been given special considerations by a federal body. Kim Campbell was Justice Min. during the Somalia affair but the liberal government seems in no hurry to expose any wrongdoing. I wish to draw a direct comparison between OHRC and the military: the military has been implicated in a cover up.
Douglas Wright made speeches about the “Elite.” Do our politicians say elite meaning THEIR friends and THEIR family, and to hell with other Canadians? Kim Campbell said that there would be NO jobs for ordinary Canadians until 1997. P.M. Chretien has been reported (23 May 96) saying that there will not be adequate job creation for ordinary Canadians. BUT NOTE: J.C.M. RILEY WAS GUARANTEED A JOB NO MATTER WHAT!
About jobs and responsibility, P.M. Chretien has asked private industry to create 300,000 jobs. And what about Senator Trevor Eyton? His Canary Wharf fiasco caused interest rates to raise 1—3%: economists claim that a 1% rise was equivalent to 100,000 lost jobs. Do the elite have a responsibility for their actions?
And what about scientists who file false reports? Aren’t people harmed? The Krever Commission reported on a company ordering its scientist not to warn the public about live HIV: children died. Silicon implants: allegations of buried safety reports. There are more.
Douglas Wright was a cabinet minister in the Davis government that created the Sun Oil Co.: which was bought with public money and sold at a large loss. Premier Harris wants to finger print the poor to stop welfare fraud: has anyone offered to finger print the former Davis government? What did Douglas Wright mean when he talked about the elite? Jobs for HIS family and HIS friends; or any kind of standards? Where is merit and social responsibility?
Social Responsibility and Merit
Society turns to universities and scientists to create better products and protect them from harmful diseases and dangerous techniques. Society depends that the scientist and universities are truthful. Often a report will say a Harvard or Yale study and the public feels reassured of rigid testing. But is it? If Yale can be bought by Canadian politicians to promote someone’s child, how safe are new drugs or techniques? What good is Yale’s reputation? Is the public really safe if a cover up follows? Can Canadian politicians violate a citizen’s Charter Rights and buy Yale? Should the American public be made thoroughly aware? Can Canadian politicians corrupt the Office of Research Integrity at NIH? How far should this go?
Pres. Clinton has apologized for radiation tests as far back as the forties. Compensation will be made. P.M.Chretien has done nothing. Civil and human rights seem to have a value in the US. Does E.A.Greenhalgh have to launch a civil action in the US so Canadians will see a system that isn’t corrupt? Or has a dreadful mistake occurred in Canada that can be corrected in Canada? E.A.Greenhalgh would prefer to do research, but he has no job, no pension, no RRSPs, no mutual funds, no house, nor any kind of equity associated with a normal life that has not been interfered with: remember there have been ten WASTED years! He will have to appeal to many people and organizations around the world to help start his action against H.R.Behrman and Yale. Or would it be better to help him, compensate for the losses caused by meanness and arrogance, to do research that has stood solid before many organizations. Christ says to forgive! BUT you can only forgive if the transgressor asks to be forgiven and shows remorse and redresses the harm. Christ was no fool.
The courts also recognize remorse and redress. I would prefer to do research, but my life has been terribly harmed. Is UW looking for the right to HARM people and be above liability? Can it control enough agencies like OHRC so to cause damage and not be held accountable? If so, then UW will be a center to create NEW thalidomides, NEW Dalkon shields, silicon implants and contaminated blood. Is that what a Center of Excellence means? Is that the type of personnel UW trains? Irresponsible and unethical people? People that the public can not trust to tell the truth or accept responsibility?
I am asking UW to accept responsibility for its own actions and fairly compensate me for my loss. If they do so, it will prove to be a benefit to them in the long run: my work is good. However, if they do not, then they represent a real danger to society. Especially, since it can be demonstrated that an organization like OHRC was so easily compromised. Any group of people who misuses political and financial power without remorse is a real danger, not a benefit, to society and must be fully exposed. The choice has always been theirs.
Dear Mr.Gerhard, I have boxes of documents. I must state that you can not make any type of just ruling without interviewing me in person and going over the material. Failure to do so will be seen to constitute proof of a cover up, and other unethical activity. I hope a fair resolution can be found. I expect to hear from you soon. Thank you.
Very truly,
Edward A. Greenhalgh
PS This is a registered letter, and represents an outline only. If no positive steps are taken soon I must start my American action. Ontario Human Rights Commission Complaint
Commission Complaint No. Code Provision ontarienne des droits de Ia personne No.
Name and Address of Complainant Name and Address of lndMduat/Organlzatlon complained about
Non, at adresse du (de La) plalgnant(ej - Nom at adresse dale personne ou de I’organisation objet dale pleinte The University of Waterloo “ Edward A. Greenhalgh Against Pres/Chancellor Douglas Wright & 265-7 Regina St. N. The Senior Administrators N2J 3B9 Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1
The complainant alleges that on, or about the Name and Address of Person/Class of Persons whose rights have been infringed. L (Ia) piaignant(e) prdtend qua le, ou vers Nom at adresse dale personne ou catdgone de personne(s) dont lee drolts cot ete Day Month Year bafoudes. Edward A. Greenhalgh MAY 1986 265-7 Regina St., N. Waterloo, Ontario In Respect of N2J 3G1 Relativement a ______The Respondent contravened a provislon of The DENIAL/OBSTRUCTION C= ACCESS TO CONTINUED EDUCATION &
Human Rights Code. 1981. Led6Iande,a.n~urieofspos#londUCodedaS . SUBSEQUENT RELATED EMPLOYMENT AND ALL RELATED BENEFITS dro#ad.Iapetsonne. 1981. .
Contravention Ground
Race Creed X Colour Age Sex Marital Status Citizenship Ancestry
Place of Origin Ethnic Origin Family Status X Handicap Receipt of Public Assistance Record of Offences ( Particulars Desa~tSondafacte(desactee) Much of the detail, photocopies etc. with pertinent dates etc. has already been supplied to OHRC in: 1. The Formal letter of Complaint, An Augmentation to 02 Feb 94; (27 July 94). As for “ the complainant alleges that on, or about the “ date box of the complaint sheet is only arbitrary. The violations are not confined to one specific date, but a series of negative actions taken together to Ignore guidelines and legal and ethical responsibilities with the cumulative effect of terminating a career in research biology. May 1986 is arbitrary because it is the date that had the University of Waterloo acted properly, E.A.Greenhalgh would have graduated from his program. The following outlines how REPR~SAL and BREACH OF SETTLEMENT are definitely. part of the abuse experienced by Edward A.Greenhalgh (Greenhalgh). Dates and events will be in reference to materials above (1) & (2), and so precise. Missing documentation will be provided to a field investigator. Other material will be asked for from the appropriate agency, i.e., Freedom of Information Act. ‘
City/Town Complaint signed at DATE I Signature of CcmpIainant NomdelavilleocaIIt6oulapiakttea6téScflée Signaturedu(dela/piaignante
Waterloo, Ontario 02 Aug 94 EDWARD A. GREENHALGH ‘03-065 (1219) Page Particulars The University of Waterloo had/has rules & guidelines outlining qualifications and expectations to be met by graduate students. Similarly these are standards of teaching, instruction and eth1cs that the University of Waterloo must fulfill. Through solicitors from 1988 to 1992 the University of Waterloo was asked to supply these regulations, but they refused to respond to this very reasonable request. The OHRC will have to ask for these. Nevertheless, these guidelines /regulations /expectations represent the student-university contract/obligation. - Further, the University of Waterloo has a contract/obligation with the Province of Ontario to provide education that meets certain ethical and legal standards. This (student-university-province) Greenhalgh alleges were quite - clearly and deliberately Breached causing considerable hardship and emotional pain to Greenhalgh. As previously explained to OHRC, & various government agencies, the MSc. program requires graduation within TWO years, or be considered substandard & ineligible for further education in a related field, and funding. By not enforcing its own rules, guidelines etc., and allowing Greenhalgh to graduate in May 1986 the University of Waterloo was actively and willfully denying access to further education and. related employment (Outlined in Besant to Waterloo (1987—88) The Senior Administrators (President/Chancellors, senators and Governing Officers) of any university are ultimately RESPONSIBLE for a university' s conduct: legal & ethical. It is THEIR responsibility to enforce regulations & guidelines. Mr. Greenhalgh has clearly stated as much to U. of W. (Davis to Haney 1990, Greenhalgh to Haney, 1993). Greenhalgh had finished all required courses & work, but WAS NOT allowed to present a thesis nor graduate (breach of contract). Proper authorities (advisors & Dean of Science) were so informed (registered letters 1987). N.B. Greenhalgh had presented his FINISHED work at the 1986 public colloquium at the same time as JCM Riley & M.Sawada (N.B. S.E.Cziraki was not an MSc. Student in 1986, but would graduate with Greenhalgh (1988) even though she shared the Riley flawed work (discriminatory). Breach of the student /university contract/ethic. Further, Dr.Carlson would take Csiraki to conferences & help publish work. No such help was even offered Greenhalgh who had to pay his own publication expenses. Discrimination.
Creed & Family Status has been outlined elsewhere (previous letters). Breach of Settlement and Reprisal will be outlined. 1. Greenhalgh submitted his thesis after receiving advice from a solicitor is a personality conflict of your supervisor. Once the university is aware, you’ll be able to leave (to your new position). Not True! There are registered letters to the under-grad advisors and Dean of Science. My thesis defense was put off until June 1987. 2. Greenhalgh had to engage a solicitor, Mr. Chris Besant to graduate. Resentment was felt coming from the SeniorAdministrators. 3. The University of Waterloo agreed to a SPECIAL thesis defense (equivalent to 1 Ph.D. defense) an outside chairman, Dr. Plumtree, plus 3 committee members. Mr.Besant pointed out that allowing Dr. Carlson to retain veto was not proper. Even so, Greenhalgh successfully defended the work & Dr. Plumtree, in front of Witnesses, congratulated him on the Ph.D. defense. Nonetheless, the University RENEGED & entered into a NEW contract. ONE: Breach of Settlement & Reprisal: Instead of allowing graduation, the University forced Greenhalgh to SUPPRESS his already defended work (Besant informed the University that this was unethical). A mean-spirited reprisal. New Contract/Settlement: If Greenhalgh worked with Dr. Bols to suppress his own work then he could: 1.graduate & 2.Dr.Bols would supply a reference. Greenhalgh did & Dr.Bols REFUSED! Breach of Settlement (1987). Mr. Besant then wrote the Senate/University who said I had already had an appeal! 1. Greenhalgh was unaware totally of such 2. No results were ever presented to Greenhalgh. Nonetheless, Sept. 87, the University of-Waterloo entered into a NEW Settlement agreement. If Greenhalgh could get 1 competent independent authority to support his work then the university was prepared to help him. Dr.Nicolson, a leading authority, wrote “the work was of Ph.D. quality and Greenhalgh had been improperly supervised.” The university withdrew its offer saying that Dr. Nicolson had no right to say such. BREACH OF SETTLEMENT.
New Contract/Settlement - 1988 Greenhalgh (& witness) met with Dean Gardner who offered help if his work was published. Greenhalgh published & the university denied any such offer. Another BREACH! In 1990 Greenhalgh asked, quite reasonably, for a reference from the Senior Administrators: Pres. Douglas Wright, & the Deans of Grad. Students & Science. The university replied that Wright and Gardner were unqualified and someone familiar with Greenhalgh should be asked. They did not mention the Dean of Science, Dr. J. E. Thompson who was quite familiar with the work. Dr. Thompson was DENYING his responsibility to help settle the dispute. If the University of Waterloo was interested in helping and not REPRISALS, this was the opportunity! They CHOSE NOT TO HELP! In 1991 Greenhalgh found that Carlson & another student (predicted in 1988 Besant letter) had stolen & plagiarized his 1986 thesis work. The highlights are: The university offered 3 names as INDEPENDENT referees.
Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina St. N. Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9 (519) 884-3318
01 Feb. 94.
To: Prime Minister Jean Chretien Premier Bob Rae Mr. Edward L. Greenspan Q.C.
Special Cover Letter for OHRC (01 Feb. 94) Letter
Dear Esteemed Gentlemen:
Enclosed are your copies of my “deposition” to the OHRC. There are a few pertinent points that I wish to draw to your collective attentions. Please find the photocopies of correspondence to Mr. Alan Borovoy (Cdn. Civil Lib. Assoc., & Ms. Gilbert’s late reply). Ms. Gilbert’s main concerns are issues to society, and therefore a reason any “Centers of Excellence” must be tested to prevent financial and medical disasters; as I believe my case would do. The excuses will be, “we weren’t ready”, or “no one was double-checking the guidelines” or “we didn’t want to speak up for fear of reprisal”. Society requires protection and a simple model is available. The only reason not to is that the participants know that they would be found unfit.
The “deposition” to OHRC was absolutely necessary since so many have shirked their duty, and I can not realistically continue without positive intervention. Douglas Wright doesn’t care if “little people” are hurt or not (registered letter to, May 93). Rather, he would lecture society on the shortcomings of an education system that he is partially responsible for. I am claiming hatred by the Corporation of the University of Waterloo. My one solicitor once wrote the University that I could be a credit to them if they helped. What does it say about our higher education system if they’d rather hate than help? Is this good for Canada?
Help, fairness and equity. I am not sure if these are nothing but words to you. Let me explain. My example will be quite blunt, but please do not take personal offence (as you are all probably very fine people). Let us compare Mr. Edward A. Greenhalgh to Premier Bob Rae (Mssrs. Chretien and Greenspan, you may compare your own histories too. Mr. Greenhalgh is 40 yrs. old, and Mr. Rae is 45; therefore fairly comparable. Mr. Greenhalgh’s father was a CNR foreman (quite proud of the CNR) while Mr. Rae has a wealthy background (Power Corp.?). Mr. Rae was a Rhodes scholar while Mr. Greenhalgh worked in a factory to pay his own way. The bluntness: had you not come from a wealthy family, you may not have been a Rhodes scholar!
What? What about ability? No doubt you are talented, but Mr. Greenhalgh only has 22 teeth. Huh? And not one without a filling. So what does that have to do with anything? Poverty! The human toll that poverty takes: the luxury of sleeping in; lack of peer pressure because your clothes aren’t hand-me-downs; not having to work after school at home; on weekends for “spending money”; not being able to do homework until 8:00 p.m. and then going to bed at 1:00 a.m. to get up at 5:00 a.m. for a 1 hour bus ride; and low-grade infections draining your health.
The teeth. At age 9 a back molar was so decayed that to stop the pain I smashed it out on a car door handle. There was no money for a dentist until at 16 I got my own spending money working after school/weekends. The dentist removed 4 roots and 5 large abscesses. Do you believe that you could have kept your grade average up? The wealthy (include middle class) do not appreciate their tremendous advantages. Do you appreciate my story now? By the way, I am the first of my family to go to university. Do you appreciate the meanness of Douglas Wright, Trevor Eyton and the other senators?
Please note, when I asked Mr. Kevin Coe (Canada Manpower, 20 Oct. 93) what work I should apply for he said, “factory work”. With everything I’ve been through, is this proof that our universities are only for the wealthy and politically connected: the elite and privileged? Is this fair? And just because I’m a white male, does this mean that the law and equity aren’t there for my protection also?
Mr. Greenspan, you are listed as a Vice-President of the Cdn. Civil Lib. Assoc. What do you think? Mr. Borovoy on CBC radio said he was inspired by the Canadian Expedition to the Spanish Civil War. I did not ask him (or Mr. Trudeau, nor others) to stop a bullet for me, but help. Is that fair?
Mr. Chretien, our society is producing Fabrikants and students like the co-op student of U. of W. 1 Jan. 93 (he killed another person) and Jag Bhaduria type people. I believe, if nothing else, I have remained a positive person under the most dreadful of circumstances. Don’t you believe such a person would prove beneficial to Canada and deserves more fairness than received so far?
Gentlemen, Canada needs positive people. I need help. By protecting negative institutions that bend the rules you aren’t making Canada more competitive, nor a fairer place. A winning attitude isn’t built upon cheating. I look forward to your replies.
Yours truly,
Edward A. Greenhalgh
The Premier Le Premier ministre Legislative Building Hotel du gouvernement of Ontario de I’Ontario Queens Park Queen’s Park Toronto, Ontario Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1A1 M7A 1A1
February 24, 1994
Mr. Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina Street North Waterloo, Ontario N23 389
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Thank you for your letter informing me about your Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) case. I have noted your comments.
The OHRC operates at arm’s length from the government so that it may consider cases free from political interference. Therefore, I hope you will understand that it would be inappropriate for me, as Premier, to comment on the matters you have raised in this letter.
I appreciate your writing.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Rae
(NB: Only Mr. Rae responded to my letter sent to PM Cretien, Premier Rae & Mr. Greenspan.) A Formal Complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission
to Initiate an Investigation 02 February 1994
by
E. A. Greenhalgh (519) 884-3318 265-7 Regina St. N Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
Mr. E. A. Greenhalgh Outlines How Discriminatory Practices Condoned/Sanctioned by the Corporation of the University of Waterloo While Promoting a “Special Student/Research Program” Violated his Access to Education and Related Employment and Benefits (this material augments that sent to the Federal-Provincial Governments requesting a Civil Rights Fraud Investigation).
Copies forwarded to:
Ms. Lillian Davis: Toronto Office of the Ontario Human Rights Commission
Federal Government Provincial Government
Prime Minister, Jean Chretien Jon Gerrard Deputy P.M., Sheila Copps Premier, Bob Rae *Minister of Human Resources, Attorney General, Marion Boyd Lloyd Axworthy Minister of Education, David Cook *Minister of Health, Diane Marleau The Law Society of Upper Canada, * Attorney General of Canada, Allan J. Scott Kerr, Asst. Secretary Rock A Vice-Pres. of the Canadian Civil *Secretaiy of State (Science, Liberties Association, Research and Development), Edward L. Greenspan Q.C.
* Ask the offices of P.M. Chretien, Deputy P.M. S. Copps (J. Boutet) and M.P. Telegdi for additional material (re: fraud and safety concerns) ...5
2.
This correspondence, plus that of the 18 Nov. 93, represents a formal complaint to be recorded as such by Mr. E. A. Greenhalgh (Greenhalgh) against the Senior Administrators/Senate of the Corporation of the University of Waterloo (henceforth, “Corporation”). Any interviewing officer with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) may “augment” to the formal complaint. This formal complaint represents Greenhalgh’s sincere and honest beliefs to be accepted as such. Copies will have been sent (registered) to the aforelisted as Greenhalgh has informed Ms. Davis of his fear that a local office may be biased to protect local reputations and only record minimal incriminating material, so no complaint would be apparent. Mr. Greenhalgh’s concerns have been raised by P.M. Chretien who has spoken on the public’s general lack of trust and confidence in government and public institutions. Greenhalgh’s precautions are, therefore, reasonable.
To request an investigation for Human Rights Abuse (access to education and related subsequent employment) by the President, Chancellor and Senate (specifically members thereof between 1984 and 1993) to conceal unethical and criminal conduct with INTENT to harm Greenhalgh’s career to the benefit of, directly or indirectly, the Corporation (including individual agents/employees) financially and personally (including any forms of prestige and family/friend relationships). The Corporation’s actions establishes an ATTITUDE that allows the compromising of public trust and standards (safety, ethical and financial) for the Corporation’s gain. The 18th Nov. 93 letter clearly defines the responsibility as being totally the Corporation’s (opposed to individual agents/professors). The Senior Administrators, as a Board of Directors of any Corporation are ultimately responsible for the character, conduct and ethics of the corporation: ensuring all laws are obeyed. Therefore, the Senior Administrators are totally responsible to ensure that human rights abuses do not occur, and especially not to initiate abuses (because higher education is meant to set and demonstrate high ethical standards of excellence); not to develop techniques to circumvent laws--including EQUITY and fair hiring practices).
CODE violations were absolutely necessary to hide unethical/criminal activities (premeditation ensuring the continuation of RESEARCH FUNDING and consequently a future academic position for J. C. M. Riley). Whether or not OHRC continues a criminal investigation (federally and provincially) or requests a public inquiry, OHRC is morally/ethically required to: 1. begin an investigation; then, 2. inform the proper authorities.
How was the CODE violated in Greenhalgh vs. Corporation? p. 2 CODE booklet: “The Ontario Human Rights Code states that every person has a right to freedom from discrimination in the area of:
…..3 ...5
3.
- contracts (oral or written agreements) - employment (including advertisements, applications forms and job interviews)” p. 3 “on the grounds of: - creed (religion) - family status (being in a parent-child relationship)”.
Point One: Contracts, written or oral - an understanding. My understanding of My contract/ agreement with the Corporation as an MSc. Biology graduate student was to fulfill the following:
A. to have the required proper background for my program
B. to complete the required course load in the required time
C. to receive fair and proper guidance from my supervisors and the Corporation
D. to produce repeatable scientific work of merit/excellence and report same honestly without bias
E. Not to have my work suppressed because of special interests outside of my MSc. program
F. to be treated with honesty, respect and fairness regardless of my publicly declared creed, any friendship requirements, or my not being related to faculty/administration; or not having done my undergraduate degree at U of W.
G. receive all normal benefits associated with the successful completion of an MSc. program; i.e., help towards a Ph.D. program, necessary references, and assistance in dealing with funding agencies (NSERC, NRC, MRC, etc.).
* * *
Point A: Greenhalgh had the necessary background: Hons. BSc. in Biology (chem. minor one credit short gen. chem. BSc. - phys. chem.). In direct contrast (i.e., OHRC, 18 Nov. 93), J. C. M. Riley had a gen. BSc. (Phys. C- avg.) without any undergrad degrees in Biology or chemistry, so J. C. M. Riley would never qualify, but he went on to a graduate degree in Biology. How was this possible that he could receive such a special discriminatory contract from the Corporation NOT allowed Greenhalgh (nor other Biology students, for that matter)?
…4
...5 4.
It has come to my attention that J. C. M. Riley may have had a relative with influence to the faculty/administration. This relative factor (“family status”: CODE) must be investigated by OHRC. A definite grounds of discrimination by the Corporation violating their own “Standards of Excellence” (over academic ability).
Further, Greenhalgh comes from a working class background possessing neither wealth nor political influence, and as a Canadian citizen never dreamed of being a victim of ELITISM (N.B. the close political ties of Brian Mulroney, Douglas Wright and Kim Campbell and their media announced stands on elitism). Therefore, the discrimination has basis in family relationships and class for CODE ‘violations
* * *
Point B: To complete courses in required time. As outlined to OHRC (18 Nov. 93) any student is considered substandard if they can not. Greenhalgh completed the required courses, yet Dr. Carlson would not let him write his thesis nor set a defense date. Dr. Carlson spent all his time helping J. C. M. Riley complete his Ph.D. before a deadline. Numerous registered letters were sent to the Corporation (student advisor, Asst. Deans and Dean of Science) for help. Finally, legal advice was sought.
Circa 1986, Mr. J. B. (David) Stock, Q.C. of Woodstock, Ont. was consulted. He advised that since I had a verbal offer to do Ph.D. studies at Sick Children’s in ‘Toronto with Dr. Pace- Asciak (“could be of clinical value” see photocopy), to write and submit my thesis. Mr. Stock felt the Corporation would see it as a personality conflict of my supervisor and help me leave to a position that would reflect positively on them. Unfortunately, the Corporation responded negatively (see photocopies 27/29 Apr. 1987) Dr. Kendrick’s “warning”). Because of this negativity, Greenhalgh would lose the offer (Pace-Asciak 1988). Please note: 1. Greenhalgh had a positive situation to go to; 2. Greenhalgh wasn’t demanding anything except to be allowed to leave, having fulfilled his part of the MSc. contract.
* * *
A direct comparison of J. C. M. Riley is required. He was approved by the Senate for an MSc. program but was unable to complete in the required time (hence would be substandard: loss of future in academia). The Senate then approved his MSc. to a Ph.D. without the required necessary courses. Therefore, he now had more time and would be seen as “standard”, and eligible for funding and future academic positions.
….5
* 5.
You must realize that if an experienced friend/relative was watching out for J. C. M. Riley’s future, they knew that positions would be available in a few years. They just had to ensure that he would match any written requirements. Therefore, J. C. M. Riley would be receiving special (outside and beyond, the normal “contract” help (discriminatory to ALL other students) to ensure future employment and life benefits (a position and associated prestige, etc.). However, this suggests that the Corporation was willing to use UNFAIR HIRING PRACTISES, and totally ignore EQUITY. Any future job competitions/postdoctoral equivalent can not be viewed as being completely fair.
Mr. Kerr of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), Mr. Haney would be aware of this situation. Dr. J. C. M. Riley has a post-doctorate situation (1994) at U. of W., so doesn’t this constitute a pre-ordained situation? Considering that Greenhalgh’s thesis challenged Riley’s Ph.D.’s very theoretical basis, and since shown flawed, can Riley truly be viewed as the best candidate; or are postdoctoral situations awarded on the merit of friendship/family? Is such a practice valid? Safe? Would any other institution be allowed such hiring practises? Are universities above the law?
* * *
Point C: To receive proper and fair guidance. Greenhalgh did not. Indeed, when the Senior Administrators asked for one competent expert, that very comment was made. N.B. Mr. Kerr (LSUC) - Mr. Haney is quite aware of the Corporation’s conduct to support continued financial gain (funding) and to preserve their reputations. Mr. Haney is an active participant, cognizant of his actions! He is also a bright man, aware of the future ramifications. As an officer of the court, when was he ethically and duty bound to report the Corporation’s actions?
More to the point, Greenhalgh had completed the required courses in the required time, but Dr. Carlson would not let him, nor help him write his thesis. He only helped J. C. M. Riley, taking him to conferences and writing his thesis: actively promoting the Riley career/and Research Program that was bringing funding/prestige to the Corporation. If Greenhalgh had published the original thesis, the Riley Ph.D./thesis theory would be exposed as flawed. The career ended and funding open to review. N.B. the theory of the Riley Ph.D. is not used today. Greenhalgh was punished/discriminated for presenting superior and advanced work (confirmed by Mr. Haney 22 Apr. 1991). This is discriminatory and a breach of the student- Corporation contract.
* * *
…6
. .
6.
Point D: To produce repeatable scientific work of excellence and report data honestly without bias.
My lawyer, Mr. Besant, finally persuaded the Senate to have Dr. Carlson step aside (though he retained veto), and a special Ph.D. style defense, with a Dr. Plumtree as chair, was held. No serious flaws could be raised and Dr. Plumtree, in front of witnesses, congratulated Greenhalgh on his successful Ph.D. defense. This is important: two outside observers recognized the work of Ph.D. caliber - 1. Dr. Plumtree, and 2. Dr. Nicolson. However, the Corporation refused to let Greenhalgh graduate unless he entered into another special contract to change his (already defended) thesis: suppressing his work and violating academic freedom (active discrimination). Greenhalgh would work with Dr. Bols in exchange for graduation and a reference (CRITICAL to continued education = ACCESS). N.B. Mr. Kerr (LSUC), Mr. Haney was aware.
But, there are TWO MAJOR considerations: precedence and discrimination to this special contract. The Corporation was applying prejudicial measures against Greenhalgh not expected of his contemporary students. Two examples: Lucy Lee and Suzanne E. Cziraki (N.B. both were U. of W. undergraduates).
1. Precedence: Dr. Bols was a graduate student advisor (N.B. recall experts’ opinion that Greenhalgh had not received proper guidance). Dr. Bols was also Lucy Lee’s MSc. supervisor. I liked Lucy and decided to attend her defense, since MSc.’s were poorly attended. Lucy had attempted a novel experiment: culturing fish cells with mammalian methods. Few questions were asked and, since I enjoy questions at my own presentations, I asked one. “What does it mean when your cells form that large fat vacoule you’ve shown?” Dead silence. Lucy looked funny. Bols upset. After a pause, Dr. Dixon (fish expert) said, “it means the cells are dead”. Oh! So in fact, Lucy’s thesis had failed to develop a viable method. Nevertheless, Lucy graduated without incidence. I have no qualms. Lucy had tried something difficult. At least she had honestly tried.
The point becomes, why was Greenhalgh discriminated against? his experiments succeed (later published and recognized internationally). Why did Greenhalgh require counsel to graduate? Lucy didn’t. Did Lucy go on to further education/ employment? This can be investigated and verified!
Suzanne E. Cziraki graduated with Greenhalgh (but had started later). Why? She completed her course load and Dr. Carlson helped her with her thesis, and took her to conferences. Dr. Carlson did none of this for Greenhalgh. By not
….7
. 0
7.
presenting Greenhalgh at conferences he was deliberately separating Greenhalgh from peer recognition and “traditionally accepted remedies”. This is discriminating and career damaging. The Corporation supported Dr. Carlson (the funding/gain), and, so his actions are the Corporation’s.
2. Second Breach of Contract/Discrimination
Greenhalgh was forced to work with Dr. Bols to suppress his own work (in direct contradiction to the Corporation’s claims of ethics/academic freedom: re: Centre of Excellence) in return for graduation and a reference (from Dr. Bols). Greenhalgh did this, but Dr. Bols refused (see Besant letters 19 May 1988, 4 Nov. 1988): breach of contract. Therefore, the Corporation is openly discriminating (perhaps committing criminal acts - re. Mr. Haney, Mr. Kerr, LSUC?) against Greenhalgh and consciously and deliberately blocking his access to related education and employment.
* * *
Before continuing, the issue of responsibility must be clarified: the Corporation itself, and through its various agents, is committing the offences. Every action is negative with the intent of harming Greenhalgh’s academic career/dreams. Therefore, although the Corporation may try to invoke 1988 for any statute’s clause, continued negative/vindictive events directly related to their intent will move any such date much later (including 1993). N.B. Mr. Kerr (LSUC), Mr. Haney was/is involved in all events: when did he have an ethical duty as an officer of the court?
* * *
Point D: To produce replicable scientific work of “excellence” and report data honestly without bias (since the life sciences can cause serious harm, i.e., DES, silicon implants, HIV- testing-blood -- a letter explaining thalidomide and harm was given to Dean Brodie). In short, to tell the truth (see Creed)!
To tell the truth required explaining serious flaws in J. C. M. Riley’s work (and associated labs at U. of W., Cornell and Yale). Specifically, there are Dr. Carlson’s handwritten comments on the suppressed thesis.
Point of Interjection: Creed. From the Oxford Universal Dictionary - Creed (krid), sb. [OE> creda, ad. L. credo; see CREDO] 1. A brief summary of Christian doctrine. (The C. usually = the Apostles Creed). More generally: A confession of faith. 1676. 2. A professed system of religious belief. 1573.
….8 0
8.
Lillian Davis replied (OHRC, 8 Dec. 93) on pg. 1: “it must satisfy two requirements: 1. It must involve one of the social areas covered by the CODE, for example, employment or services and; 2. It must also involve one of the grounds set out in the CODE such as handicap, colour, age, sex, marital status, creed, race among others.” As we have been examining how my education/related employment has been discriminated in the “Contract” violations, my “Creed’ as a threat to the Corporation must be examined (as will my class, and my non- relative status).
Note the last sentence in my thesis acknowledgements: “My mother and father who formed within me an appreciation for God, honesty and hard work.” God, honesty and hard work: a CREED declared in writing! The Corporation is aware of this declared creed. How would a belief in God requiring the practice of honesty threaten them? If they were engaged in unethical or immoral or illegal activities requiring everyone to be on side, then the creed would be a threat to them (i.e., grant fraud, unfair hiring practices, etc.). It would publicly question prestige and ego. But whose funding? Whose ego?
One answer may be found on pg. 141 of the suppressed thesis in Dr. Carlson’s handwritten comments. He told me not to include the BW755c or NaPB experiments (crucial to the scientific explanation, but contravening views) on the grounds of statistically insufficient numbers. Greenhalgh validated their inclusion by citing Carlson and others who in 1974 claimed ONE ewe was statistically significant! The BW755c (as an antioxidant reaction) + NaPB (cell death theory) work questions the very validity of Riley’s thesis plus work at Cornell and Yale. Dr. Carlson’s comments include, “this is not fair”, and, “how can anyone trust you?” My “contract” and creed requires Greenhalgh to be truthful and unbiased. Note letter to Dean Brodie, and isn’t this how the 1993 U.K. cancer hospital scandal occurred?; no one would speak up in an unbiased fashion. Truth is absolutely necessary in science! Dr. Carlson, in essence, asked me to lie! By supporting Carlson/Riley, the Senate was asking me to lie (and, ultimately, endanger society). My creed put me in conflict with Douglas Wright, Trevor Eyton and the other Senators.
* * *
Point E: Not to have my work suppressed because of special interests outside of my program.
What special interests would exist outside of the honest and unbiased reporting of data? Two are suggested:
….9 1
9.
1. Grant fraud (i.e., O’Toole vs. M.I.T.). 2. The reputation of the Corporation, international political connections, plus the personal vanity of people in power: ego.
How? Review Dr. Carlson’s comments, plus p. 223 of the suppressed thesis: “As for the contention that membrane fluidity is important to receptor-binding (or lack of) or adenylate cyclase functioning (or hindrance thereof, or endocrine function) no support could be provided for such from the work presented in this thesis. What the thesis does conclude is that physical changes do occur in regressing luteal cell membranes, but they are just that: physical responses after the fact. They may be part of the mechanism providing arachidonic acid for PG biosynthesis; however, they are not the signaling mechanism. The literature still places the origin of that signal deeper in the cell and an investigation of genetic expression would provide greater insight than more polarization studies could hope to."
This one page clearly summarizes that the research at U. of W., associated with J. C. M. Riley, Drs. Carlson, Thompson, Bols and others, is flawed. Similarly, the work of Hansel (Cornell) and Behrman (Yale). Greenhalgh took a public stand in 1986. In 1990 Weight et al. won the Nobel Prize for explaining why, in better detail. Therefore, the Corporation and friends would have cause to feel threatened (MOTIVE) and seek protection, even though they would be violating Greenhalgh’s rights. The 1988 Tor. Star article concerning Pres. Wright vs. Prof. Guelke’s concern for public trust vs. millionaires is an example of attitude. We can draw from the article Wright’s concern for money, which would be reflected in the Corporation’s policies.
The funding threat is obvious (grant fraud - worldwide concern). The other agenda is subtle, involving human vanity (ego). We must examine only students contemporary to the incident’s time frame. We also must consider that in 1990 (see newspaper article), Douglas Wright was appointed P.M. Mulroney’s special educational advisor (he is Pres. and chancellor). This is a man of prominence with connections, and it is fair to suggest that he believes in his own importance and power. It is also fair to suggest that he believes that U. of W. should be a “Centre of Excellence”, and therefore U. of W. students are superior. It is also fair to suggest that these beliefs are shared by the Senate.
Point: J.C.M. Riley is a U of W product. What other contemporary students did their undergrad studies at U of W? Lucy Lee, Dr. Bols’s grad student. Jackie Brown, Dr. Thompson’s grad (was she also related to Jack Brown, the University Secretary?), Suzanne E. Cziraki, Dr. Carison’s other MSc. student. It should be apparent that an outsider (from
….10 10.
WLU) was questioning (unintentionally/ honestly) their excellence. Is it fair to suggest that egos were rubbed the wrong way? Is it fair to suggest that the Corporation could have reacted with a mean and vindictive attitude (Mr. Haney’s correspondence is a record of broken promises). Therefore, human jealousy is a valid explanation for the human rights violations (and isn’t it a common cause?).
* * *
Point F: To be treated with honesty, respect and fairness regardless of any Creed, Family Status (not related to faculty/administration/political party or business connections), nor the special prerequisite of having been a U. of W. undergrad.
The question that MUST be investigated is, Who was J. C. M. Riley related to, or befriended by? Why was Greenhalgh discriminated against while special provisions were made for J. C. M. Riley? Specific example, Mr. Haney (Davis 20 Mar. 91, Haney 22 Apr. 91) replies that the work may have been published and of superior quality but that is no substitute for having been enrolled in a Ph.D. program and fulfilling all of the requirements. The point is neither did J. C. M. Riley, except by “special escape clauses” from the Corporation. Greenhalgh was discriminated against.
***
Point G: To receive all benefits associated with the successful completion of the Program.
Blacklisting will be outlined and how the Corporation may be guilty of spreading hate about Greenhalgh to prevent his doing research (so U. of W’s would not be examined by peers: MOTIVE). Only a few representative pieces will be presented in this FORMAL COMPLAINT. Please realize that although verbal or electronic communications are not physically lasting, but the result is provable. The concept is similar to overriding habeas corpus - a murder conviction may be obtained even though a body is never found. The effects of blacklisting are to “poison the waters” so that the individual loses all opportunities associated with the NORMAL pursuit of the goal. Any corporation that can’t demonstrate a positive atmosphere of goodwill and open communication is deemed fully responsible for any and all of its agents’ actions (especially if they do not show disdain or contrary actions, and may even benefit from said actions). Therefore, only one concrete example is necessary. More than one follows, and their associated dates give a real time frame for any statutes of limitations.
….11
. 11.
There must be a “Benchmark-Reference Point” relative to the period that Greenhalgh was competing in. The contemporary students were: Riley, Brown, Cziraki and Lee. Did they later: i) receive funding, ii) position/jobs and/or iii) further education? How do they compare to Greenhalgh who lost all opportunities and finally blocked by protocol (Dr. Slotin/MRC, 14 Apr. 1988 -funding is only available if you have a position at a recognized facility). Discrimination and harm should be apparent.
For example: the correspondence with Dr. E. Vos of CIBA-GEIGY who first (7 May 1990) offered a scholarship, but later don’t do research in Canada (19 Aug. 1992).
Dr. Pace-Asciak of Toronto’s Sick Children’s (26 May 1986) considers the work of potential clinical value, but later changes his research (27 June 1988).
Dr. Carl Laskin of Toronto General Hospital (25 Apr. 1989) who says he’s unqualified to be my supervisor (of a female reproductive project). Yet, the next year he receives $80,000 from MRC to study aspirin and pregnant women (same concept as BW755c - see the Burroughs Wellcome correspondence).
Then there’s the Dr. Huntley-Blair/Dalhousie correspondence (26 Jan. 1990) who acknowledges our telephone conversation wherein there was “no space” for Greenhalgh. As an MSc., Greenhalgh has 3 single author papers (most new Ph.D.s can’t do this) - an astounding academic feat. Therefore, for the Dalhousie students to be better qualified, they would have to, at least, match this ability. Therefore, no students should have been accepted into a related Ph.D. program if they were not. Subpoenas will quickly answer if any students entered such programs. if so, Dalhousie is guilty of discrimination (possible criminal violations). Why?
Then there’s the correspondence with Dr. J. Dorrington of the University of Toronto (July- Aug. 1989). Dr. Dorrington turns down Greenhalgh after a verbal acceptance for a Ph.D. Why? A friend had a change of mind. Two points: 1. If this is true, then U. of T. is guilty of discrimination. 2. If there was no student, then Greenhalgh was not told the truth. Blacklisting. Subpoenas.
Then there is the very kind Dr. Nicolson (23 Jan. 1990). This very good man helped me more than any of my countrymen (save two). He states that Fm a victim of jealousy. 1 should change fields, be positive, put the past behind me and move on.
.…12
1 12.
I tried. Review the kind offer from Dr. Peddie (9 July 1990, U.K.) who considers the work interesting and would I be interested in a position? This is acceptance! But the position disappeared (see letter to Dr. Peddie 27 Aug. 1990). Why? There is more to this issue, and subpoenas are required. But note - based only on the quality of his work, Greenhalgh is more than acceptable.
Please be fully aware that Greenhalgh was doing everything possible to leave the past behind - it was following him! Someone was spreading hate. Note Mr. Davis to Mr. Haney (Davis, 12 Apr. 91) requesting a letter of reference from Mr. Wright, etc. because of the bitterness of the dispute (N.B. Bols’ refusal earlier). Mr. Haney replies that he can’t understand why Greenhalgh would need such a letter. The Corporation had the chance to be positive and prevent harm, but chose not to. The Corporation (as noted by Davis) is fully responsible.
Dr. Nicolson is a good man who gave advice that Greenhalgh tried to follow. Greenhalgh developed AIDS-related experiments that pharmaceutical firms said were worthy of sponsorship (see example), but they don’t do research in Canada. Note the letters to McMaster, who, unlike the Pharmaceutical Presidents, wouldn’t even reply. McMaster turned down additional funding! Does that make sense if blacklisting isn’t being applied (like the Hollywood writers under McCarthy)?
Then there’s Dr. Poznansky’s reply: because of protocol he can’t even offer Greenhalgh a position in 1993. Greenhalgh is blocked from research. It would appear that the Corporation’s hate has done its job. Greenhalgh’s career is over and the statutes of limitations date is moved to 1993.
Nonetheless, the MAIN POINTS to consider are:
1. J. C. M. Riley’s undergraduate record would never have qualified him at any other university for entrance into a Biology Ph.D. program. He required very special help. Who provided this help? Someone with a very special influence: a position of power at the university; lots of money; connections to a political party; or a combination thereof. Therefore, it becomes apparent that Greenhalgh’s human rights were violated (discriminated against) because of Family Status (not being a relative/friend) and Class (from a working class family without influence in the above 3 categories). Riley’s undergrad record is easily subpoenaed.
2. J. C. M. Riley has some type of position (1994) at U. of W. (easily investigated). Therefore, it can be strongly argued that any “competitions” for his position were invalid and represent a criminal activity (N.B. Mr. Kerr,
….13
1 13.
LSUC, regarding Mr. Haney’s client’s future actions) i.e., they violate FAIR HIRING PRACTISES and EQUITY. Equity because any female or minority candidate with an Honors B.Sc. background has better qualifications to begin with. This may represent a criminal violation SANCTIONED by the Corporation. This suggests that J. C. M. Riley was pre-ordained to be employed (in some capacity and move upward from there) at U. of W. Apparently someone loved him very, very much. So much so that university guidelines were meaningless and others’ human rights could be discriminated against.
Love may be admirable, but not when others are made to suffer. Such an unchallenged action strongly indicates that the Corporation would condone unsafe science/medicines at the public’s expense (see Gulch). I do not believe that a thalidomide or DES victim, nor an I-HV-infected hemophiliac would find such love admirable. However, it may explain why many failures concerning health safety were not properly investigated (i.e., MRC/Dr. Slotin doesn’t investigate for guidelines violations). Is this the format for the “Centres of Excellence”? If so, will they be safe?
‘Standard of Excellence” brings us back to the Corporation and Douglas Wright (both president and chancellor). By accepting two positions, he accepted double responsibility (in his 9 yr. term the accumulated salary would be in the millions, therefore, we must expect great responsibility from such a man). J. C. M. Riley represents Douglas Wright’s ideal: his personal Standard of Excellence for all of Canada. Also the National Standard for Reproductive Science; Safety Testing, etc. Is it good enough? This is why an investigation is absolutely necessary.
The main points to OHRC are these. I met all of my contract obligations but was discriminated against because of creed, family status and class. Even when I tried to walk away from a negative situation, the Corporation, directly or indirectly, out of hatred and fear, continued the negativity until a career became impossible. Therefore, I have no choice but to file a claim and seek a full investigation.
What I believe has been clearly demonstrated was MOTI\’E and INTENT. The Corporation, by delaying my graduation past accepted time constraints, had the definite INTENT to terminate my career (to protect their funding and J. C. M. Riley). Unfortunately for the Corporation, the work was of such superior quality as to be published and achieve international recognition and acceptance.
….14
t 14.
The Corporation, by and through its agents, then was forced to apply extraordinary measures to achieve their original INTENT: to end a career. The Corporation’s actions were pre-meditated and mean. Such meanness can only be a negative force to Canada, and should not be tolerated by any progressive and fair-minded persons and governments. To do otherwise is to say that we have no safety standards, and the elite are above the law. The Canadian people deserve better. An investigation is required. Thank you.
Yours very truly,
Edward A. Greenhalgh
P.S. Written replies are absolutely necessary
t Edward A. Greenhalgh 265—7 Regina St. N., Waterloo, Ontario. N2J 3B9 (519)—884—3318
Colina Magee The Ontario Human Rights Commission 20 July 1994 Intake Officer 824 King St. N., Suite 101 Kitchener, Ontario. N2J 1G1
Dear Ms. Magee:
I read your letter dated 15 July 1994 (received 19th July, 94) with shock and amazement. Your office has NOT acted properly by not following your own proper procedures, and ,yet, you are giving deadlines. I gave you my letter of complaint on 02 Feb. 94. According to your booklet: 1) a field officer is to meet personally with me, and 2) the two sides are to meet within 90 days. You have failed to obey your own rules. My original letter took your office 5 MONTHS to respond to and now you are giving me 10 DAYS to outline complicated and sensitive material which may require the Freedom of Information Act to acquire. Receiving replies from the Office of the Freedom of Information takes more than 10 days! Your letter seems unethical and insensitive, especially when your own office has failed to follow its own procedures. Quite frankly, your deadline is akin to telling a rape victim that she has 10 days to prove that she is not a slut. Very offensive, distasteful , and not very professional in light of the ERRORS that you made in your very own correspondence. Whether these mistakes were deliberate (smacking of political interference and a lack of ethics) or the result of incompetence remains to be determined.
Canada and Ontario} have declared the Right to Access to Education a basic Human and civil Right. This is my claim. Interference with the access to education and employment was outlined in the original 02 Feb. 94 letter. This is my complaint. You have avoided the issue and made an improper and erroneous statement. The University of Waterloo is NOT a private employer like “Bubba Joe’s
t Lawn Service”, but essentially an extension of the government body (like hospitals, libraries etc.”. They receive monies from the Government of Ontario and in turn, are expected to fulfill certain obligations that Bubba Joe doesn’t.
Among government obligations imposed on institutions are Access to Equity, Fair Hiring Practices etc. For example, Bubba Joe, or other private entities, do not have to take unpaid days off to meet cost cutting expectations. The University of Waterloo IS participating in this program therefore IS responsible to OBEY ALL equity laws and hiring practices etc. How could you make such a blatant misrepresentation?
Further, Education Mm. David Cooke has been on tv. defending his appointment of a member to the Conestogo College. Min. Cooke said that it was part of his responsibility to the taxpayer. Similarly, the University of Waterloo falls under the same jurisdiction. Therefore, all expectations that are to be met by the civil services and bodies that fall under the auspices of the Province of Ontario must be met by the University of Waterloo. Bubba Joe can hire his aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters, but the University of Waterloo(unless you show me an owner like Bubba Joe) can not. Indeed, universities have been called upon by the Government of Ontario to speed up Equity hiring. Your statement was WRONG!
Since your letter is centered on these TERRIBLE FLAWS, its very validity and 10 day threat is questionable. I DO NOT RELINQUISH ANY CLAIM, especially those made under duress and unrealistic conditions. I DEMAND that you obey your own mandate and follow proper investigative procedures; i.e., have a field officer interview me as required. If you do not, then your actions are open to questions of ethics and political interference.
I will gladly supply all details, including the possible and criminal intervention of a member of the Federal Senate. The Freedom of Information Act and other offices will be involved. This CAN’T be done in 10 days. Your ACTIVE participation is an absolute necessity if you want the truth. Further, I am waiting for authoritative opinions from important American agencies that will add to my claim. If you had a field officer involved with my case (as was your responsibility) then you would already be aware. Again your 10 day demand is TOTALLY IMPROPER!
This letter serves to formally inform the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the offices of Premier Bob Rae, ATT. Gen. Marion Boyd, Min. of Education, David Cooke, and my local MPP, Elizabeth Witmer, that I do not forfeit my Human Right claim nor the right to ask for a criminal investigation. If you use Bosnia/Haiti as examples of civil /human rights abuse and criminal actions are seen to go arm in arm. Indeed, this letter serves notice to all that you have legal and ethical responsibilities and obligations to pursue this matter. You can not ESCAPE these obligations by an artificial 10 day caveat/escape clause, especially in light of your failure to obey procedures. And in the following days as events unfold, and as you suggest that criminal activity is uncovered, it will be the responsibility of the proper bodies to pursue these investigations. As we have come to see with Dr. Poisson and the Red Cross scandal, too many people are passing off their duties, obligations and responsibilities.
t I believe that your letter, especially the closing sentence, in light of the mistakes made in your correspondence, and failures of OHRC to follow proper procedure, is improper, and perhaps, unethical. I am not allowing your office to avoid its obligations and responsibilities. I now look forward to your office acting in a proper and ethical manner. I EXPECT to hear from your field representative in 10 days, or you are in admission of improper conduct.
Thank you.
Most Sincerely,
Edward A. Greenhalgh.
Lilian Davis , Toronto Office,OHRC. Premier Bob Rae. Att. Gen. Marion Boyd Min. Educ. David Cooke MPP Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo).
NOTE: Your office’s Five month delay has added to the extreme hardship that I am presently experiencing which can be directly attributed to the actions committed by the University of Waterloo.
t Ontario Ontario Commission Human Rights ontanenne des Commission droits de Ia personne
824 King Street West Suite 101 Kitchener, Ontario N2G 1G1
Telephone (519) 571-6078 1-800-263-9525
July 15, 1994
Personal and Confidential
Mr. E. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
We have now had an opportunity to review the material you provided I concerning the alleged infringement of your rights. Unfortunately, from the information you have provided, it is not clear at this point that your problem is one, which can be resolved through Human Rights Legislation.
Your concerns seem to center around practices sanctioned by the University of Waterloo. You further allege that these practices infringe your rights based on creed and family status. You have not provided any information to link this occurrence with a ground under the Human Rights Code.
I would like to point out that the Ontario Human Rights Commission does not investigate criminal matters nor do we cover a person’s social status in society. Furthermore, an organization may discriminate on the basis of family status, in other words, an employer can give preference to a person who is a child or parent of an employee or of the employer. Family status as defined under the Code, does not extend to brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins etc., therefore we have no jurisdiction.
Creed under the code means to be a member of a particular religious group such as, Muslim, Hindu, Seventh Day Adventist etc. You have not indicated which religion you practice nor how it applies to the Human Rights Code.
The circumstances you describe do not appear to violate the Human Rights Code in that you have not indicated that there is any evidence connecting your family status and creed to your status as a student at the University of Waterloo.
t We are unable to proceed further in this matter without any information from you linking family status and creed with contracts and services. Therefore, if you have any such material, it would be in you best interests to provide it to us immediately, in writing.
Please be advised that if we do not receive the above information from you within 10 days of the mailing date of this letter, we will conclude that you do not wish to proceed with this matter, and your file will be closed.
Yours sincerely,
Colina Magee Mage~’ Intake Officer Edward A. Greenhalgh 265—7 Regina St. N., Waterloo, Ontario. N2J 3B9
M:r. Alan Borovoy Gen. Council of the Canadian Civil Liberties (519)—884—3318 229 Yonge St., Suite 403 Toronto, Ontario M5B 1N9
Dear Mr. Borovoy:
I am writing for help. Please read the enclosed: Letter to Mr. Haney (23rd&l4th Apr.93), General Appeal for Help, letter to Mr. Trudeau , Greenhalgh’s Response , and other as you wish. I firmly believe my case can be proven , but dedicated (and politically unafraid) help is needed. As pointed out to Mr. Trudeau, many other Canadians will benefit also. I believe that I can prove that someone(s) knowingly went out of their way to destroy my career and future. Surely my civil rights decree that 1 have the right to pursue an honest career and not be interfered with. Even worst, my work could actually be a benefit to Canada and mankind: only greed and jealousy has blocked its continuance!
We (my wife and I) have spent several thousand dollars pursuing this legally and ethically. We need dedicated legal council. Mr. Haney appears to want me to do something stupid so he can tie my life up in a punitive legal trap. I would still like to find a fair compromise so the work could continue. Margo O’Toole received an apology and a new position(in the United States).
We hope that you will talk to us to find positive solutions if possible (even recommendations of dedicated council to help present the case to the Crown). We are positive little people who need honest help. Bullies should not be allowed to steal people’s hopes, dreams and futures. At the very least, please talk to us. Thank you.
Yours Truly, Edward A.Greenhalgh 265—7 Regina St. N, Waterloo, Ontario. N2J 3B9
13 May 1993
Mr. Alan Borovoy Ms. Clara Addams Gen. Council of the Canadian Civil Liberities 229 Yonge St. Suite 403 Toronto, Ontario N5B 1N9
Dear. Mr. Borovoy, Ms. Addams et al.:
I am sitting down to share my feelings concerning the telephone conversation of 13 May 1993 (Thu. Morning). If I can prove that interference to my pursuit of an honest career; honest work, has occurred, have my civil rights been violated: Yes or No? Why did Ms. Addams say I couldn’t? Does she have all the correspondence that I have? Yes or No?
I am shocked and hurt. I come from a working class family and paid for my own education. I have been given quotes of $70,000.xx to pursue this in the courts. What area my civil rights, if not, you don’t!
I have written P.M. Mulroney and asked him if Canada is a third world country. If I came from Haiti, I would be from a similar class – the poor working class. So if I was a Haitian who went to university in Haiti, paying my own way to succeed, but my scientific work upset the Haitian Senate: Would it be logical that they would see to it that I wouldn’t get work as a scientist, but as a field hand (as a demonstration of power)? Would this be a violation of my civil rights? Especially if I could prove it? Would you tell a Haitian field hand to get a Haitian lawyer to take on the military government?
Or would you tell the Haitian, shut up, you are from the working class. Know your place! These rich and powerful men run the country and make the laws and pay our salaries. Who do you think you area any ways?
Is that what you are telling me? And the rest of the poor working class of Canada? I don’t know about you folks, but, “MY CANADA INCLUDES” HONESTY AND FAIRPLAY!
I sincerely expect you to answer just one question: If I can prove interference with a career position, have my civil rights been violated? Yes or No?
Most Sincerely:
Edward A. Greenhalgh •~(T\ \~~C\’~J~\
Edward A. Greenhalgh 265-7 Regina St. N. Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3E9
Mr. Alan Borovey Ms. CarlaMs. Addams Carla Addams 21 May 1993 Gen. Council of the Canada Civil Liberties 229 Yonge St., Suite 403 Toronto, Ontario. M5B 1N9
Dear Mr. Borovoy, Ms. Addams et al.:
I do not know what to say. You were asked to answer just one question (registered letter, 13 May 1993):
“If I can prove interference with my honest pursuit of a career : honest work, have my civil rights been infringed upon ? Yes or No?”
You have not answered this simple question (nor addressed my previous two correspondences). Why?
The only groups who usually do not answer their correspondence are usually in the wrong or under some type of criminal investigation: i.e., polluters, tax evaders, Crown corporations, etc. Are you similar to the aforementioned examples? I am truly amazed!
Most Sincerely
Edward A. Greenhalgh CANADIAN ASSOCIATION CIVIL LIBERTIES CANADIENNE DES ASSOCIATION LIBERTES CIVILES 229 Yonge Street, Suite 403 229 rue Yonge, Suite 403 Toronto, Ontario M5B 1N9 Toronto, Ontario M5B 1N9 Telephone (416)363-0321 Telephone (416) 363-0321
Edward Greenhalgh November 30, 1993 265-7 Regina St. N. Waterloo, On N2J 3B9
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
We acknowledge receipt of your letters of April 26, May 13 and May 21, 1993. I apologise for the delay in responding to your letter of May 21, 1993. I understand that you spoke with Ms. Adams of our office regarding your initial correspondence and your request for CCLA’s advice.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is primarily a law reform organization working to entrench fundamental civil liberties in Canada’s legal system. In general, therefore, we are not a service agency. Our work usually involves broad systemic issues rather than service to individuals. Cases which turn on a unique set of facts are generally not appropriate for this role. In addition, the lawyers on staff with CCLA are not able to give legal advice to members of the public.
Unfortunately, as Ms. Adams previously discussed with you, CLA is not in a position to advise you regarding the issues raised in your letters. You may wish to consult a lawyer in this regard. Should your counsel believe there is an issue in your case which warrants CCLA’s involvement, he or she may contact us for further discussion at that time.
Yours truly,
Catherine Gilbert Projects Director Minister of Justice Ministre de la Justice and Attorney General of Canada et Procureur general du Canada
The Honourable/L’honorable Allan Rock Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H8
Mr. Edward A. Greenhalgh
265 — 7 Regina Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3B9
Dear Mr. Greenhalgh:
Thank you for your correspondence concerning your complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I regret that I was unable to reply earlier.
As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, my mandate is to serve as the principal legal advisor to the federal government, its departments and agencies. The situation you have raised appears to be a provincial matter. Accordingly, although I have taken note of your situation, I hope you will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in this circumstance.
I thank you for the materials you enclosed with your letter, and I regret that I am unable to assist you further. I sincerely hope that you will be successful in resolving your concerns.
Yours very truly,
Allan Rock
Canada